More Australians are working multiple jobs as wages fail to pick up   :( 

August 1, 2019
Sydney Morning Herald


Australians are still struggling to get decent pay rises and increasingly turning to side gigs to make ends meet, with new data showing 600,000 workers have three or more jobs.

The Morrison government's forecast of a wages recovery appears to be at risk after wage increases in new enterprise agreements fell for the second quarter in a row, locking in stagnant wages for hundreds of thousands of workers for the next three years.


More Australians are working multiple jobs to make ends meet.

ANZ economist Catherine Birch said the reversal in the direction of wage growth revealed in data published by the Attorney General's department on Thursday "suggests that the gradual improvement we have seen in the wage price index could fade".

Separate data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics the same day showed a dramatic increase in the number of Australians holding multiple jobs, with a doubling of those working in four or more different positions in 2016-17.


Australia Council of Trade Unions Secretary Sally McManus said the expansion of "non-standard forms of work" had developed into a "crisis of insecure work".

"The fact that working more jobs means, on average, earning less shows that people forced into holding multiple jobs are doing it out of dire need," Ms McManus said.

Labor Senator Tony Sheldon used his maiden speech on Wednesday to rip into disruptor tech companies such as Uber for "pillaging" the Australian economy and harming worker rights.

The former Transport Workers Union secretary wants gig economy workers, who are often treated as independent contractors, to have employee rights to better pay and entitlements.

Average wage increases fell to 2.7 per cent in the March quarter, down by 0.1 per cent, making the Treasury forecast of wage growth hitting 3.25 per cent by 2020-21, then 3.5 per cent the following year, increasingly unlikely.


Public sector deals were the worst hit, with wage increases falling 0.3 per cent to just 2.4 per cent.

Federal Labor employment spokesman Brendan O'Connor seized on the ABS figures as evidence of "serious structural issues in the labour market" that were being exacerbated by government inaction to address "insecure work" and "soaring underemployment".

"Economic growth is slowing down, wages are stagnant and this government is pretending there is no problem," Mr O'Connor said.   :(

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Thursday that his government had demonstrated that it was "on the side of the Australian people" through its tax policies.

"We've supported delivering tax cuts, tax relief for all working Australians, so they can keep more of what they earn," Mr Morrison said.

Jim Stanford, an economist at the Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work, said the soft wages data reflected an erosion of the power of unions to win bigger increases "in the face of ... a very hostile legal and regulatory environment".

"The government should be looking at ways of rebuilding collective bargaining as a key support for wages," Professor Stanford said. "It is incredibly ironic that the government's top labour policy priority seems to be to further hamstring unions."

The House of Representatives passed the government's union-busting Ensuring Integrity Bill on Wednesday after Labor MPs spent three days arguing against it.

The government, which has the numbers in the lower house, is set to pass another bill to curtail unions' use of interest earned on worker entitlement funds.

But it needs the support of crossbencher Senator Jacqui Lambie or one of Centre Alliance's two senators to get the bills through the Senate, where it will be debated after a Senate inquiry reports in late October.

Gosh the union propaganda parrot BlackDay squawks his umpteenth thread on the same dull subject.

Wages will pick up when business activity picks up and there is competition to get staff which is why the govt is trying so hard to boost business activity.

Just forcing wages up now would simply get people dumped from jobs as business struggles to remain financially viable.

Similarly forcing weekend penalty rates up would simply get casual people dumped from their weekend jobs.

Australians have got a wage increase from the tax cuts.

The Libs have spent lots in creating new jobs to allow people to get off NewStart.

Unfortunately a lot of the people on Newstart are over the hill at 50 plus and probably have not prepared for their retirement.

Fortunately Australia is in good safe hands.

And happy news RIO has just paid a special dividend as the ASX moves skywards under ScoMo's winning aura.

Hi sir Crook aka Whiteknight,

Australia is obviously in a recession.

I doubt that wages will go up.

But Robert BlackDay doesn't understand a word of what he posts as he just repeats Union and GetUp! propaganda.

I bet those UNION boss make sure THEY get a pay rise...

;) ;)

Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 8:39am:

Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot

thats sad news spot...being a carer is a tough job...those who do it should be rewarded...and to be honest I always thought they were... :(

One thing that has been killing people is high power prices caused by private profiteering and inefficient unreliable expensive renewables.

A lowering of power prices is effectively an increase in wages. In addition lowering interest rates so long as the banks follow on is a further increase in wages.


What ScoMo is doing about this unacceptable electricity expense on people and business.

We are taking action to lower prices.

Our plan for affordable, reliable power includes: a price safety net to protect customers; big stick legislation to stop energy company rip offs of customers; and a technology neutral program to underwrite new reliable energy generation.

This builds on previous measures to lower energy costs, including: requiring power companies to provide better deals; securing priority gas supply for Australia; and putting downward pressure on network costs (which are passed on to customers) by stopping the energy networks from gaming the system.

Our plan for affordable and reliable power is getting results.

From 1 July 2019, we will permanently get rid of the ‘loyalty tax’ and lock in better deals for nearly 800,000 households and small businesses.

Households will save up an estimated $481 per year in South Australia, $663 in NSW and $662 in South East Queensland under a direct market offer.

The savings delivered build on the price cuts of up to 15 per cent secured by the Morrison Government for more than 500,000 families and small businesses from 1 January 2019 – and our ban on sneaky late payment fees that will save some customers up to $1,000 a year.

To further support pensioners and many other Australians we are providing $365 million for Energy Assistance Payments to help with energy bills – $75 for singles and $125 for couples.


Now what was vicious brutal Labor planning to do.

During six years of Labor Government, power prices doubled and went up every year.

Now, Bill Shorten wants to replicate South Australian Labor’s 50% renewable target on a national level, which will mean higher electricity prices.

Labor also wants Australia to go far beyond the rest of the world and cut carbon emissions by 45%. This would damage our economy and cost local jobs.

Independent modelling shows that Labor’s 45% Emissions Reduction Target and 50% Renewable Target will cost the economy $472 billion, slash more than 336,000 jobs, cut the average wage by over $9,000 and increase wholesale electricity prices by more than 58%.

https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/energy

Not sure why people are surprised.  People voted the Coalition = no decent pay rise.

Poor Stunned is reading from the GetUp! hymn book.


There are 2 ways of increasing wages.

1. Simply increasing them which is self defeating as it simply increases the cost of living.

2. Reducing the cost of living which is the Libs approach.
eg a lowering of power prices is effectively an increase in wages. Reducing taxes which is effectively an increase in wages.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 8:39am:

Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot

You need to tell them that a minimum 3 hour shift is the legal requirement.

rhino wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 6:50pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot You need to tell them that a minimum 3 hour shift is the legal requirement.

In most cases, you're right.

Unfortunately though, under the Modern Aged Care Award 2010, the minimum engagement for a casual homecare employee is just one hour.

Sucks, but it's true.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 6:57pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 6:50pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot You need to tell them that a minimum 3 hour shift is the legal requirement. In most cases, you're right. Unfortunately though, under the Modern Aged Care Award 2010, the minimum engagement for a casual homecare employee is just one hour. Sucks, but it's true.

actually, we are both wrong. I just looked it up,
b) Permanent part-time and casual employees will receive a minimum payment of two hours for each engagement.

You should have known this.

rhino wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 7:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 6:57pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 6:50pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot You need to tell them that a minimum 3 hour shift is the legal requirement. In most cases, you're right. Unfortunately though, under the Modern Aged Care Award 2010, the minimum engagement for a casual homecare employee is just one hour. Sucks, but it's true. actually, we are both wrong. I just looked it up, b) Permanent part-time and casual employees will receive a minimum payment of two hours for each engagement.

Not quite.

The key is "homecare"

"(b)              Permanent part-time and casual employees, other than homecare employees, will receive a minimum payment of two hours for each engagement.

"(c)              Permanent part-time homecare employees and casual homecare employees will receive a minimum payment of one hour for each engagement."

http://awardviewer.fwo.gov.au/award/version/MA000018?vn=9&rvn=9#_Toc225328676

Clause 22.7

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 7:39pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 7:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 6:57pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 6:50pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot You need to tell them that a minimum 3 hour shift is the legal requirement. In most cases, you're right. Unfortunately though, under the Modern Aged Care Award 2010, the minimum engagement for a casual homecare employee is just one hour. Sucks, but it's true. actually, we are both wrong. I just looked it up, b) Permanent part-time and casual employees will receive a minimum payment of two hours for each engagement. Not quite. The key is "homecare" "(b)              Permanent part-time and casual employees, other than homecare employees, will receive a minimum payment of two hours for each engagement. "(c)              Permanent part-time homecare employees and casual homecare employees will receive a minimum payment of one hour for each engagement." http://awardviewer.fwo.gov.au/award/version/MA000018?vn=9&rvn=9#_Toc225328676 Clause 22.7

My apologies.  You're right.

There was an amendment in 2011.

The minimum *engagement is now 2 hours for part-time and casual employees - the 'homecare' part was deleted.

*Just to be pedantic though, which is unusual for me, it's a minimum payment.

That is, the employee might only be required to do 30 minutes work, but they still need to be paid for two hours.

"Permanent part-time and casual employees will receive a minimum payment of two hours for each engagement."

Regardless, either the 1 hour shift is another of Spots exaggerations or the employees concerned are being ripped off.

rhino wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 8:15pm:

Regardless, either the 1 hour shift is another of Spots exaggerations or the employees concerned are being ripped off.

My guess is that they do one hour at Spot's mum's place, then one hour somewhere else.

The engagement doesn't have to be at the same location.

These carers quite often visit 3 or 4 different clients in the course of a day.

Sometimes more.

Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case.

Also if that was the case there would have been no need to modify that particular award provision in 2011 from 1 hour to 2 hours.

rhino wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case.

Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location.

In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:08pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work.

Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite, they want a couple of pounds. Seems a very strange stance for you to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through.

Setanta wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through.

They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law.

And, it happens every single day.

The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work.

Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous.

Setanta wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous.

Wherever they can, they do.

When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement).

A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets.

If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours.

The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:33pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice.

I thought were were talking about this...

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 8:39am:

Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot

Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working?

Setanta wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:33pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice. I thought were were talking about this... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working?

It's up to the client, not the boss.

If the client - Spot's mum - says she doesn't need any more help, the carer leaves her house.

If the carer then calls the office and the office says they have no other clients booked, the carer is sent home.

However, they're paid for the minimum two hours.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work.

No one is saying it doesnt. Seems you are trying to change tack here because you were wrong about the hours.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:33pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice. I thought were were talking about this... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working? It's up to the client, not the boss. If the client - Spot's mum - says she doesn't need any more help, the carer leaves her house. If the carer then calls the office and the office says they have no other clients booked, the carer is sent home. However, they're paid for the minimum two hours.

Doesn't look like Spot's mum is sending them home but they don't have the time to stay to do any more. Isn't that how you'd read his post?

rhino wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. No one is saying it doesnt. Seems you are trying to change tack here because you were wrong about the hours.

Nope.

I made a mistake.

I apologised.  You were right.  I was wrong.

I'm just saying that workers are paid for hours not spent at work all the time.

Setanta wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:45pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:33pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice. I thought were were talking about this... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working? It's up to the client, not the boss. If the client - Spot's mum - says she doesn't need any more help, the carer leaves her house. If the carer then calls the office and the office says they have no other clients booked, the carer is sent home. However, they're paid for the minimum two hours. Doesn't look like Spot's mum is sending them home but they don't have the time to stay to do any more. Isn't that how you'd read his post?

This is the way I am reading it.

Setanta wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:45pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:33pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice. I thought were were talking about this... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working? It's up to the client, not the boss. If the client - Spot's mum - says she doesn't need any more help, the carer leaves her house. If the carer then calls the office and the office says they have no other clients booked, the carer is sent home. However, they're paid for the minimum two hours. Doesn't look like Spot's mum is sending them home but they don't have the time to stay to do any more. Isn't that how you'd read his post?

One hour at Spot's mum's place, and one hour at Greg's mum's place (instead of two hours at each place).

What's so hard to understand?

Plus travel time in between. More than 2 hours whichever way you cut it. Why is that hard to understand?

rhino wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:54pm:

Plus travel time in between. More than 2 hours whichever way you cut it. Why is that hard to understand?

One hour at Spot's mum's place, 15 minutes travelling to Greg's mum's house, and then 45 minutes washing Greg's mum's dishes and making her bed.

Are you catching on yet?

There is no requirement - legal or otherwise - to spend a full 60 minutes at any one client's house.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:45pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:33pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice. I thought were were talking about this... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working? It's up to the client, not the boss. If the client - Spot's mum - says she doesn't need any more help, the carer leaves her house. If the carer then calls the office and the office says they have no other clients booked, the carer is sent home. However, they're paid for the minimum two hours. Doesn't look like Spot's mum is sending them home but they don't have the time to stay to do any more. Isn't that how you'd read his post? One hour at Spot's mum's place, and one hour at Greg's mum's place (instead of two hours at each place). What's so hard to understand?

I can understand that no probs but the carer is not being sent home with pay. That's just not going to happen in that industry. More likely the employer wants two pounds of flesh for the one he is paying for.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:55pm:

One hour at Spot's mum's place, 15 minutes travelling to Greg's mum's house, and then 45 minutes washing Greg's mum's dishes and making her bed. Are you catching on yet?

No, you do not understand award conditions very well. You are saying that the carer is working 1 shift but 1 hour in each location. If the carer ceases the shift for the  first client to work for the other then that becomes 2 shifts, 2x 2 hours. If the carer  doesnt cease their shift then of course the carer is continuing to get paid whilst travelling to the 2nd client. All the  service providers through the NDIS are aware of this and pay a minimum of 3 hours because it has been challenged through the industrial arbitration system before. You arent very good at your job.


Quote:

There is no requirement - legal or otherwise - to spend a full 60 minutes at any one client's house.

No one said there was.
Strawman arguments wont help you here.

Setanta wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 9:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:52pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:45pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:33pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice. I thought were were talking about this... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills Spot Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working? It's up to the client, not the boss. If the client - Spot's mum - says she doesn't need any more help, the carer leaves her house. If the carer then calls the office and the office says they have no other clients booked, the carer is sent home. However, they're paid for the minimum two hours. Doesn't look like Spot's mum is sending them home but they don't have the time to stay to do any more. Isn't that how you'd read his post? One hour at Spot's mum's place, and one hour at Greg's mum's place (instead of two hours at each place). What's so hard to understand? I can understand that no probs but the carer is not being sent home with pay. That's just not going to happen in that industry. More likely the employer wants two pounds of flesh for the one he is paying for.

Happens every day, I can assure you.

I have carers for my parents when I'm away, so I know exactly what goes on.

If there is no other client booked, and the carer is finished at my parents' house, they are sent home.

They don't make them go back to the office and clean the toilets or wash the mangers' cars.

Moreover, it happens every single night in shopping centres across the country.

e.g. A store manager is told that a truck is arriving at 10pm with 20 pallets of stock.

The manager arranges for 5 casual workers to do a 3 hour shift.

When the truck arrives, it only has 8 pallets (not an unusual occurrence - mixup at the warehouse, whatever).

The pallets are emptied and the shelves are stacked by 11.30pm.

With no further work for the shelf stackers to do, they are sent home but paid for the minimum period (3 hours).

These are just two examples.

There are many, many more in many other industries.

rhino wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2019 at 10:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2019 at 9:55pm: One hour at Spot's mum's place, 15 minutes travelling to Greg's mum's house, and then 45 minutes washing Greg's mum's dishes and making her bed. Are you catching on yet? No, you do not understand award conditions very well. You are saying that the carer is working 1 shift but 1 hour in each location. If the carer ceases the shift for the  first client to work for the other then that becomes 2 shifts, 2x 2 hours.

Incorrect.

There is no 'ceasing of a shift' in moving from one work location to another... how would any self-respecting road gang survive doing patchwork quilts on the roads?