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


Where do you hear that?

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


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. 

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


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:


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

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


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 10:05pm:



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

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


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....   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). 

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? 

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


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.