Australian Politics Forum - The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #90 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:23am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139800 Gender:	Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates Reply #91 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:25am 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #92 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:27am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #93 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:30am

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59377
Here
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #94 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:30am

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139800
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #95 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:32am

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #96 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:33am

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #97 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:35am

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139800
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #98 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:39am

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139800
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #99 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:41am

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #100 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 1:52pm

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #101 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:19pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139800
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #102 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:26pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59377
Here
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #103 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:34pm

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59377
Here
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #104 - Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:47pm

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged