While other retailers in shopping malls are required to open Public Holidays, Australia Post corporate stores are not. Today, Melbourne Cup Day, Australia Post avoids the crazy penalty rates while retailers competing with them are hit by the cost. This situation is a benefit available to Australia Post solely because of their protected status as a government owned business. It is a perfect example of government ownership and protection providing them an unfair competitive advantage.
Are the Banks open in Victoria today?
No.
Country bank branches are open. Only Metro a Melbourne get a public holiday for the cup
Why don’t govt offices open 7 days. If 7 day trading had to happen because families could not get their shopping done due to work commitments etc surely the same applies to the tax office etc.
Sorry that was dumb you cant even contact them in normal working hours.
Victoria obviously needs to change its laws in line with some other states (e.g. QLD or WA) where the laws ban shopping center landlords from forcing tenants to open on public holidays.
In SA our centre closed completely on public holidays.
Our trading hours are mandated for 1 night a week til 9pm (any night) and Sunday trading is not mandated which means that I open every single Sunday that is available and around me I am surrounded by shops which choose not to open.
It is just farcical. People come into my shop all day asking when the other shops will be open.
I am in a lovely centre with beautiful shops surrounding me and I actually feel sorry for the landlords (only a little bit) because they cannot force the shops to open on a Sunday and it affects the trading for those of us who do.
The laws need changing here in SA as well.
Deregulate the ridiculous wages we pay on Public Holidays (& Sunday), and watch stores open of their own accord.
Yes, Ben, let’s accelerate the race to the bottom. In fact, let’s not just cut out penalties, why pay staff at all? Why not make our
staffslaves rely on tips to get by? Some US states mandate a minimum wage of $1.50/hour for tipped staff. Guess you’d be at home there.I am sick to death of hearing “we value our employees” from the same people who would slash and burn wages and conditions. The sooner we see a return to strong unions with communist leaders the better.
June, if you want to open Sunday, that’s fine, but please do not support any changes that will force me to open Sundays. I’m not that greedy.
And WTF would anyone feel “sorry” for a landlord because he cannot force the shops to open on a Sunday ? The landlords is still getting the rent.
I think SA Trading laws are fine as they are, plenty of hours to shop, still some time off for staff and owners.
Greed has done more to ruin this nation than any government could.
I think wage rates for everyday hours are fair for the cost of living in Australia. That said, weekend rates are not fair – in all retail businesses, not just independent small businesses.
On the issue of Sundays, it should be optional. Unfortunately, to get a spot in a major centre we sometimes agree to contract to open all Sundays. That’s what this post is really about.
Sunday trading in WA introduced in the past 12 months or so has benefited the large shopping centres to the detriment of the little guys and the neighbourhood shopping centres. The big guys have won again. Many of the delis are now gone and I would suggest some news agents as well unless they have been able to adapt.
The problem with penalty rates is they aren’t always the same for big business and small business. The large retailers are able to enter into collective bargaining with the shoppies union and trade of higher base wages for lower penalty rates as long as FWA approves it under the no disadvantage rule. Once thats in place ,which it is,then every extra hour worked under penalty rates is to the advantage of the big retailers and the detriment of small retailers.
my staff never get rostered on a sunday, id have to charge $10 for a paper to cover costs, tell me where the winners are in this situation, its not me or my staff. Another win for the union movement?
David, I believe that a daily product (newspapers) means that a retailer should
open to serve the public. Believe me, it is not greed. I work every Sunday myself because, like Rick, my takings are not enough to have staff employed.
However, that doesn’t mean that we should have a choice over Sunday trading – if it was mandated we would all be open and the public would know that this was so, but confusion reigns because some retailers choose to shut on Sundays while others open and the punters are not sure what or why.
We are near a Coles and their staff don’t get double time for Sundays and it is really irksome. If I only had to pay ordinary time for ordinary mandated hours I would be employing at least another staff member so it is a lose/lose the way it is now.
R
June, surely Coles also pay their employees above award rate every other day of the week and would actually be paying more per hour, on average, over the whole week than yourself. Their penalty rates are different because their entire pay structure is different.
Coles has an enterprise agreement which pays an overall higher rate to cover the loss of penalty rates. It’s one of the reasons they usually do not struggle to get employees.
The question that should be asked re; penalty rates…..”is there such a thing as weekends anymore”?
Consumers have demanded almost 24/7 shopping hours but consumers have not realised how it is to be paid for.
In my previous life as a publican my wife and I would do all public holidays ourselves. Normally there would be 3-4 eight hour shifts available for bar staff and a 2-3 hour shift for kitchen staff. Thats 26 to 35 hours of wages not paid to employees and therefore not spent in the local community.
In my current life as a newsagent and before I decided to close on sundays I had many many people looking for weekend work. They werent seeking penalty rates, they were seeking extra employment to help with the mortgage, bills or simply to get ahead in life. I could not afford to employ these people, so who wins?
Whilst the discussion of penalty rates will have many varied opinions I believe that the penalty rates here in australia are antiquated at best.
If small business is to survive and to give people a choice to find extra work penalty rates will have to change (or be abolished).
Well said Allan.
Is there such a thing a weekends anymore? We’ll in most industries – yes.
Where some businesses might not be able to pay weekend rates there are plenty who can and do. If a business can not afford to pay its employees while competitors can then wage rates are not that businesses problem. If the survival of a business hinges on whether or not they pay weekend penalty rates then one has to question the viability of that business as a whole.
Our society still structures the majority of work around a 5 day, Mon to Fri working week. Penalty rates aim to keep that structure in place with the exception of two main industries – retail and hospitality.
If you want to make an argument against penalty rates then make an argument against the 5/2 working day structure. If you abolish penalty rates then the wage structure will likely move to something such as that which the majors use – a flat every day wage but one which is higher overall. I suspect those retailers and hospitality businesses that already close on weekends might not be too pleased with such a situation.
So long as you are comparing apples with apples on a level playing field
In retail every day is the same, it’s only the weekend by name. Pay rates should reflect this and be the same rate every hour, every day, every week. Employees are missing out on employment opportunities and working hours because as owners of the business we work weekends due to higher pay rates.
There are major differences between small business and large which highlight why the hourly rates should be different.
Firstly if a supermarket is losing money on sundays it will not close because it will lose market share in that location. The other supermarkets across the country cover the costs.
Secondly, we can have a sunday off to the cost of around $400(wages, super, workcover etc). Meanwhile the executives and managers of the supermarkets are sitting around the pool drinking cocktails ALL weekend at a cost to themselves and their employer of zero.
To my knowledge small business employs more people in retail than the larger businesses.
Also late night trading was introduced because people could not get to the shops during the working week. Now every day is a shopping day there is no need for late night trading anymore. It has dropped off to the point of not being viable.
In many retail businesses the weekends are different. Some close, some open different hours, some operate in much the same way. But my point is that penalty rates are not a reflection that the weekend is different for the industry – its a reflection that the weekend is different for society. Its generally the time during which most people enjoy leisure, spend time with friends and family, etc.
I suspect that the number of hours not worked by employees on Sundays because businesses choose not to employ people is far outweighed by the number of hours that are actually worked by employees.
The total amount of wages paid to people in retail on Sundays would be significantly lower if penalty rates were scrapped and their value not averaged into a new higher everyday wage.
My point about scrapping penalty rates remains. If you scrap penalty rates that loss will almost certainly be incorporated into a new higher wage rate. That rate would be lower the what the majors pay (because they’re almost certainly paying above award as per a collective agreement) but would be higher than the current rate and would increase costs for businesses that don’t already open or don’t employ people on weekends.
The situation requires professional investigation independent of vested interests.
My view is that society has migrated from a 5/2 view of the week of a 7 view. This warrants a recasting of pay rates.
Talking with business owners where they have enterprise agreements covering seven days, there is a net saving to those businesses compared to the penalty rates they replaced. But they are just two stores. Professional research is required.
This post is about Australia Post corporate stores being allowed to not open when their direct competitors are forced to open.
Only about 20% of Australian employees regularly work weekends. Less than that would be working on any one weekend. *UniSA sixth Australian Work Life Index
If there are net wage savings to those stores I’m not sure how those agreements would pass a no worse off test – although there could be a trade off for some other entitlements. Regardless, if what you’re aiming for is a reduction in total real wages then what you’re actually arguing for is a reduction in income for some of the lowest paid workers in the country.
As I said, it required professional independent investigation.
If we all chose to have the weekend off to spend with family/friends, what would we do as everything would be closed, as no one is working. So people do expect business to open on the weekend, so they can have a meal, watch a movie, go to the zoo etc, hence the need for a 7 day work cycle that does not penalise a business that opens to serve the public, unless the public would happily wear the cost of everything increasing in price on a Sunday by up 2.5 times on a weekend to cover costs. I think a working week should be 38 ordinary hours worked during the day, no matter what days worked, anything over 38 hours would attract penalty rates. As to what the hourly rate should be, that needs to be worked out.
Rick,
If one wants to increase their prices on the weekend they are free to do so (within the limitations of the contacts the enter into of course).
Retailers do what every other sector does when it comes to penalty rates (or any other variable expenses), they average the cost out over a period in determining the price to sell their goods.
You don’t charge people more for goods during peak electricity periods when energy costs more – you take the cost of electricity into account as a whole over the billing period.
I’m happy to pay a penalty rate to all those that earn one. The staff that work on Saturday for me cannot work Monday to Friday as they have school to attend so they work when they can and that’s on a Saturday. If you are working one day a week and working the only day you CAN work then how does that earn a penalty? What we are saying is that the staff on Saturday are more valuable than the staff that work on Monday, how is that the case? I hear some say that it earns a penalty because they are working when everyone else has the day off. I say they choose to work and earn when they can. I agree with most of what Mark says, the world is now 24/7 and it’s about time the IR laws came up to date. The reality is now that shops are choosing to close. Is it better to earn slightly less or have no work at all? Rick proposes the 5 day any day case, that suggests that a 38 hour week is the standard and should you, in any week, exceed that amount then a penalty is probably due. I’m a hard case I know. I’m an ex soldier. We had no penalty rates, no overtime, just a requirement to get the job done. I don’t expect that of my retail staff but I suspect that the Monday to Friday full time specialists wonder why the 8 hour a week part timers get paid a better rate.
Hence the Sunday/public holiday surcharge that everyone whinges about, they charge more to cover costs. I know my staff would welcome extra weekend hours, but that are priced out of that market, so they can’t access that opportunity. Penalty rates are a handbrake on employment, and in particular youth employment. I don’t expect agreement from the left on this tho.
Brett,
Simply because some people are only available to work weekends does not mean it is not a penalty. They are working when the vast majority of society is having a day off.
The world, in terms of employment, is clearly not 24/7 as evidenced by the fact the less than 20% of employed people are working on any given weekend.
The “reality” is that if businesses are choosing to close on weekends then they are simply making a decision based on their own profitability.
The idea that a business should be able to lower wages (in an already low paid, award set industry) simply to make itself viable is an argument for a race to the bottom. If a retailer can’t afford to pay employees then either the owner needs to work or they need to close.
Its a false dichotomy to present the options as “Is it better to earn slightly less or have no work at all?”. This only looks at the issue in the micro. If you removed Sunday penalty rates (double time) then you would need to increase the number of hours people were employed by double to have the same total amount of wages being paid to retail workers.
Rick,
Do penalty rates increase unemployment? Does an above-market centralised wage increase unemployment? While the traditional thinking says it does many of the more modern studies and modeling indicate that it doesn’t, or if it does, the effect is very marginal and offset by other factors.
When reducing wages one has to take into account the effects of reduced spending.
The idea that the main goal should be working towards lower unemployment is a dangerous one because it completely ignores measures of wealth distribution and standard of living.
Ah Jarryd,
Once I remove all the emotion from your reply (race to the bottom etc) I don’t see you have an argument.
We would all love to pay our staff lots. No issue.
No one has ever said if they pay those rates they will fold. They have said if they pay those rates they don’t see enough benefit for the business.
If you are ONLY able to work a weekend – there can be no penalty else you are saying to your other staff they are less valuable.
You cannot look through the lens of your own situation. There are many many keen to work a few hours on a Sunday just to top up their income, for a host of reasons – for many that’s no longer possible as the shops choose to stay closed, why? Because the earning potential is minimal and they choose to invest instead in their own welfare and family time.
I opened Sunday for a year to see how it would all go. After paying wages it was more valuable for me to invest in time with my daughter. Were wages more sensible I would employ a shop manager and staff and do both!
Penalty Rates are an anachronism, a left over from the 1950’s and the unions hang onto them like they hang on to the last vestiges of their own credibility.
Maccas and KFC etc don’t pay penalty rates, many large companies don’t, they have bargained them out of their wage bill because they recognise that its a 24/7 world and they are trading in it.
The last large employer group still in the 5/2 world is the public sector, coincidentally the last large union presence too.
I don’t see why we should have to play by their rules.
jarryd
if my staff pick up a shift on a sunday at ordinary rate where as they dont get a shift at all at penalty rates, how is that reducing their wages?
appreciate that is a very simplistic example, and the whole issue needs greater investigation, im just highlighting that the current system of penalty rates is out dated, and yes it does cost emoloyment, and more importantly youth employment
Brett,
Penalty rates are a reflection that the majority of society considers weekend time (ie the time they spend with friends, family, etc) more valuable than the standard time periods designated for work.
The wages lost from businesses closing on weekends is not outweighed by the additional wages paid out to those that choose to stay open. If you remove penalty rates and more businesses decide to open then the total amount of wages paid out to people working weekends will be lower.
You’re also missing the social reasons for penalty rates in that they reenforce the importance of weekends from a health and standard of living point of view.
Large companies don’t pay penalty rates because they have negotiated a different pay structure. The value of those penalty rates has been incorporated into the base wage and has been required to pass a no worse off test. If a business wants to do this then they are free to enter into collective bargaining with their employees.
With more than 80% of employed people not working weekends I find it incredibly strange that you think the public service is the only sector that largely works Mon-Fri.
Rick,
That example is only from a micro perspective. If we look at all employees in the retail sector then by reducing penalty rates you are reducing the wages of existing weekend workers.
For every hour worked on Sunday you would need to see a 100% increase (double) in the number of hours people are employed to have the same total amount of wages paid out by the industry. That is simply not going to happen.
Ah Jarryd,
MOST people agree with me, not you. For a quick informal poll, check the number of likes on my comments vs yours.
Your politics obscures the truth sadly.
My view is that the reason penalty rates were established no longer exists today. This alone is why I say we need an independent professional assessment of the pay model that best serves the needs of Australia. Paying someone $35.00 an hour on a Sunday is ridiculous.
It looks to me that Jarryd’s political views are of the left wing variety, ie employees should get whatever they can no what the cost to the employer, the economy or society. The views of some of the other commenters are more of a centrist viewpoint, a little to the right of centre in some instances, where they try to strike a balance between what is fair to everyone.
Jarryd may point to economic studies that prove this that and the other, however there are economic studies that can prove anything you want. If you want to prove a left wing viewpoint, look to what a left wing biased study gave you from an organisation such as a labour union. The same goes for if you want to prove a right wing viewpoint, look to a right wing biased study from an organisation such as an employer’s group.
While I agree with Jarryd that employees should be paid a premium to work weekends (or hours outside of normal hours whatever these normal hours are defined to be), the current penalty rates were set in a time where society’s values where very different to what they are now.
When I first started working a casual job after school in 1989 there was no Sunday or public holiday trading, and late night trading was 1 or 2 nights a week. Now we have 7 days trading, late night trading every week day, and we open public holidays with a few exceptions. There are people who want to shop these hours, and there are people who want to work these hours.
A fairer system to all would be perhaps the 1st 38 or 40 hours worked during the week are at a standard rate, with all hours after that being at a higher rate. Alternatively, perhaps Saturdays could be 1.25 times and Sunday’s and public holidays 1.5 times. Perhaps standard hours could be 7am-9pm or similar with anything outside this attracting a premium. Or perhaps there is some other similar solution. I don’t claim to know the answer, just that the system now is from a different era and needs to be updated to a modern era.
One thing I do support is that no-one should be forced to work weekends or public holidays if they choose not to. There needs to be government protections for this.
The system is now costing jobs, I know because I have put people off in my business, as well as not replaced people who have left, because of the ridiculous wage rates.
jarryd
i dont think that small business is micro perspective, it employs more people than big business. penalty rates affect small business the most, unfortunately we don’t have the political clout of big business or things would have been different ages ago.
Mark, We have an independent review of awards conducted every 4 years by the FWC.
Brett,
I prefer to take economic advice from experts and studies – not the number of comment likes on a small business blog.
Dean,
Attempting to paint my position as “employees should get whatever they can no what the cost to the employer, the economy or society” is a complete strawman argument.
My position is that reducing the real wages of some of the county’s lowest earners and trying to dismantle any semblence of structured working hours/leisure time is neither good for the economy nor society.
If we accept that people “want” to work unsociable hours (I don’t accept that is the case for the majority of people) then we have to look at what is the cause of that desire? Is it because everyday cost of living pressures are significantly higher than they used to be? Is it because people want to get into a housing market increasingly out of reach? It may be that people are looking for work not because they want to, but because of other structural economic issues that are giving them little other choice.
What may be lost in terms of the number of hours people are employed is more than made up by the increase in total wages paid to those who do work in penalty rate periods.
My statement still stands that even if you cut penalty rates then it is almost certain that, like in the collective agreements of large businesses, that penalty rate will simple be incorporated into a higher base rate. The average cost of employment/hour would remain relatively the same.
Rick,
Your example is from a microeconomic perspective because it looks at a single business or employee in highly limited parameters. A more sound approach when examining IR policy is to look at it from a macroeconomic perspective.
Jarryd, you clearly don’t own a business. It is pointless trying to debate you as you just don’t get it.
Jarryd, I suspect you work for a trade union or at least have very strong support for them, and have studied economics where you clearly favour the ideology from the left wing side of economics. That doesn’t make you correct, it just makes you a left winger who can’t see that there is a differing point of view.
Some people choose to work unsociable hours for reasons other than you mention. Some choose it so that they can work early or late hours then spend the day with the kids, or volunteering, or whatever it is they do. Some are students and can’t work weekdays. Some are stay at home mum’s and work weekends when their husband doesn’t work. Some are saving up for an overseas trip and work as many hours as they can for it. There are many other reasons. I remember being a casual at Kmart in the late 80’s / early 90’s, when big business was fighting to have Sunday trading just for Christmas. They did a deal with the union and the government to allow it before Christmas one year. The union then came around to tell us not to work it. We told them where to go as we were students and couldn’t work during the week. I accept that it is not for everyone, maybe the 20% of people willing to work these hours that you suggest is accurate.
This comment thread is a good example of why an independent assessment is needed – one that is outside what FWA does, something that looks more broadly and completely at the situation.
The current penalty applied to Sunday work is no longer relevant. Who any change impacts is not relevant. What is relevant is that we operate in a global economy and to effectively do this you need globally competitive business parameters. Otherwise weaker businesses will fail and everyone loses from that.
Jarryd, You obviously don’t like anyone disagreeing with you. It seems you are preaching from the bureaucrat’s guide on how to run a country.
Clearly Australia is loosing it’s competitive edge against the rest of the world, arguing that weekends are more valuable than the rest of the week ect ect. is pointless
Australia’s wage system needs reforming in all areas including penalty rates and benefits .
To all who disagree with Jarryd, just think clearly about one point.
In our businesses we rely on people having discretionary income, that is money left after they have paid the necessaries such as food, shelter, clothing, heat/cooling and utilities. By driving wages lower, you reduce the discretionary income that is available to be spent on your products.
Your employees are also your customers, or the customers of other businesses that spend with you. If they have nothing left after covering the necessities then you are down a customer.
In 1914 Henry Ford doubled the wages of factory workers and as a consequence began a) the rise of a middle class and b) created a market for the cars he made. I suggest that quite a few of you opposing Jarryd would do well tom have a “Henry Ford Moment” in your own businesses.
Are you big enough to see the world outside your own door? Or are you so small and mean that you only care about your immediate position?
Dean,
I managed two family retail businesses for around 7 years up until last year. I supported both penalty rates and unions then and continue to do so now.
Let me make it very clear that I don’t not support penalty rates because unions support them. I support them solely from an economic/sociological perspective.
Mark,
The idea that there can be some kind of unbiased assessment and subsequent prescriptive course of action is fallacious. At some point you have to impart certain values.
The global economy rhetoric simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. We are a high wage economy and any attempt to compete directly with low wage economies on cost of production factors is a fruitless endeavor that would lead to our incredibly high standard of living falling off a cliff.
It is a complete myth that high wages mean we can not compete globally.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/06/why-the-minimum-wage-is-good-for-business/
Fascinating to see the Keynesian economics on display by some here. I would have thought the examples of Keynes theory currently on display in the world (Japan, The US, Europe, Oz) would make most run screaming, but apparently we are doomed to repeat history.
The customer comes in on a public holiday, buyes a paper and asks “Where can we get a coffee/meal etc ?” answer…no one is open as they can’t afford the staff. The casual student has no oportunity to earn a buck (many will work for much less), the business unable to earn to put back into his business, and the Gvt gets no taxes from it ! A few years back daughter got a job in Brisbane at a Real Estate business. 2 hrs every sat, Paid for her bus fares to Uni and maybe a small Pizza. She was elated. The FWA jumped in and brought in the three hr min, and RE agent scrapped the job. Very disapointed young lady.
Brett, I’d love to see us repeat the history of Keynsian economics that brought us the prosperity and stability of the 50’s & 60’s, rather than give in to the horrors of the heyekian libertarian policies that have never worked anywhere.
David,
Not sure Keynes ever worked as advertised
Jarryd,
Try to find an article that supports your argument that is not written by left wing union affiliated researchers. Of course they are going to argue for higher wages, they start off with that as their conclusion and then make the facts fit their argument.
“”Attempting to paint my position as “employees should get whatever they can no what the cost to the employer, the economy or society” is a complete strawman argument.””
I don’t see how. Higher wages (I am talking about the ridiculous penalty rates not the ordinary wages during the week)costs jobs, costs profits, costs people wages they desperately need, costs businesses lost income, costs business owners in many cases the ability to take time off or have a weekend, costs taxes, stops some businesses opening weekends and public holidays, I could go on. Maybe it is not your intent to cost all these things and more but it is the effect.
Jarryd newsagents live in the real world, not the left wing academic world you seem to live in.
You may have managed businesses but it was not your money on the line you got paid no matter what. It was your employer who suffered the ounitive penalty rates
Brett & David.
Keynesian economics. Haha, Nice one Brett, in terms of context.
Seems to have a soothing effect on markets. Whether it’s right as such – anyone’s guess – too complicated for me 🙂
I think I’d rather be a Contrarian, more fun that way.
And yeah, Keynes might have been having 2 bob each way on his previous theory.
Brett,
Australia adopted a Keynesian approach in the face of the GFC and that approach has been hailed as an incredible success.
Comparatively those countries that adopted austerity have not fair so well.
David, your assumption is that by reducing penalty rates that the saved money would be taken out of the system completely.
This is not the case any of us are arguing. By paying normal wages on a Sunday, we would employ 2 people instead of 1 and twice as many shops would be open all paying wages!!
The employees on weekends are generally uni and high school students who mostly spend their income soon after receiving it. This spending is good for the economy as the weekday mum and dad employees have been saving their money for a time now.
You are welcome yourself to have a Henry Ford moment and pay double wages for the next 12 months. Maybe take on a couple of extra staff if you are feeling generous.
Report back to us next November and tell us how it went for you.
Dean,
That is simply not what high minimum wages results in. It if were the Australian economy would be riddled with falling GDP and high unemployment. Our wages have been comparatively high for some length of time.
Penalty rates can’t be examined in a bubble. They need to be looked at in terms of the overall cost of wages – the total and average costs.
If you couldn’t find anything then you weren’t looking very hard. The most cited modern studies on the link between increased minimum wages and unemployment show that there is either no increase in unemployment or very little increase (depending on what level they are already at naturally) and that the positive effects of the increase far outweigh any potential small increases in unemployment.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/minimum-wage-rises-dont-lift-unemployment-analysts-agree-20140711-zt443.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/the-evidence-is-clear-increasing-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cause-unemployment
Your argument against academics is an ad hominem that only diminishes your argument further.
I’ve defended my role in managing my family’s retail businesses here many times and won’t be rehashing it again.
Peter,
To give their employees the same amount of purchasing power the total amount of wages paid out to retail workers on a Sunday would have to be the same. With a 100% penalty rate employers would have to DOUBLE the number of hours which they employed people to keep the total industry wages the same. Anything less would result in a loss of purchasing power and lower sales.
Do you honestly think employers are suddenly going to double the amount of employment they demand on a Sunday? No – of course they aren’t. It would defy all the modeling we use for labor markets.
This discussion is an example of why economic policy in this country is stuffed. There needs to be a discussion. That cannot happen as long as people stay too far to the left or the right of then table in the middle of the room.
Jarryd
You may think you have sound theories, that’s all they are, because in the world I live in they don’t work. I can categorically state the Sunday penalty rates are costing my staff the ability to earn extra income.
Jarryd,
Thanks for confirming your bias.
With that in mind I found it to be my duty to find you some reading from the left side of politics, so I found a peer reviewed paper from the ANU.
http://press.anu.edu.au//apps/bookworm/view/Agenda,+Volume+17,+Number+2,+2010/6691/makin.xhtml
and I also found you this
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
Keynes does not aid an economy, it damages it.
We might all have been eager during the GFC to “do something” and Stimulus Package One was probably the something we needed to do. After that however the Govt damaged the economy with more and more stimulus. Its time for the business community to step in but the Govt first has to step out.
Keynes is a crock – and now we all see it.
Rick, I agree. I work every Sunday for the same reason.
The business cannot afford to employ at double time on a Sunday which is a very weak trading day anyway.
Half the traders in our centre don’t even open on a Sunday which affects those of us who do.
We need to do away with Thursday night trading and mandate Sunday trading so that all centres and villages must be open on a Sunday but at the same rates as m-f
unless the employee works over 38 hours for the week.
Everyone won’t agree, but it is quite simplistic and it would work if the govt
had the will to mandate it
June, if Sunday is a weak day, why open? And WHY would anyone want the government to tell you when you MUST open? So much for the free enterprise entrepreneurial spirit small businesses bang on about.
It would be far better for the government to mandate ALL shops must close on Sunday.
We have tried Sundays, for us it is not worth the time, but you would like to see us forced to open against our will and against our economic interest.
Further to my above rant, any further liberalisation of trading hours simply plays in to the hands of ColesWorths. They can trade 24/7 if the law permitted. Can you? Would you want to?
Surely there is more to life than shopping and work
David, we are retailers. Customers expect us to be open 7 days – simple really. If you don’t like the heat (retail)
get out of the kitchen.
It comes down to choice again – just like everything in life.
David, I said “mandate”‘ because when we are left to our own devices we cannot
agree on anything so like naughty children we need to be told when to open
quite simply to engage all retailers and put us all on the same page
Rick,
And therein lies the problem. You are only looking at this from the perspective of one business, not the collective actions of all businesses in the whole economy.
June,
Mandated retail hours makes absolutely no sense. Why would you want the government to tell you when you have to open? That would be asking for legislation that actually removes your ability to manage the most basic operations of your business.
This would be an unprecedented burden on small business that would only lead to greater concentration of market power in larger firms.
It never helps when opposing parties make personal attacks or tell opponents how narrow their view is.
Jarryd
I doubt my case us isolated, your arguments are baseless ideology that belongs in the 1950s. Really no skin off my nose, but typical union movement mentality means the worker misses out while the executive swirl their snouts in the trough with gold plated credit cards paid for by the lowest paid that can’t get more hours because of outdated regulation.
Just for the record I spent 20 years as a paid up Union member so I know how it works
Jarryd, thanks for enlightening me on why I was wrong in thinking employing more people in this country was a good thing. I have to disagree with your view on this.
I do agree with you that Sunday trading for a business should always be optional, that decision to be made by the business owner. Weather an employee works is then their choice. If the rate of pay is not enough for them, another will take their place. That’s life.
I read the links you threw up, and unfortunately from the “academics” all I got was that THEIR thinking had changed. It’s good that they have the ability to think, and even the ability to change their thinking(unlike some), but that tells me they got it wrong to start with, and no telling wether their new epiphany is right either.
Don’t put your house on what “academics” say
Sorry June, but I don’t accept your argument that my “choice” is to be in or out of retail. My choice is to have Sunday as a rest day, and you want to deny me the ability to make that choice.
I have never attempted to argue that my choice for Sunday rest should be forced on you, or anyone else.
I am so disappointed the people who should know better are blinded in to serving the needs of the greediest of all, the ColesWorth duopoly.
I have seen the effects of deregulated shopping hours in New Zealand with supermarkets open 24/7. No independent newsagencies, very few butchers, green grocers or continental delis.
It is not a good picture for our future.