The penalty rates for Sunday has now been reduced.
What do you guys think about it? Does it affect you?
Sunday Penalty Rates Slashed
IMadeYouReadThis on 23/02/2017 - 12:52
Last edited 23/02/2017 - 12:57 by 1 other user
Last edited 23/02/2017 - 12:57 by 1 other user
Related Stores
Comments
Doubt it, the penalty rate has been slashed from 200% to 150%, they can still justify a Sunday surcharge.
Best of both worlds for businesses.
They'll keep charging the surcharge, and get to pay their employees less. A nice boost to their bottom line.
Employees really lose out on this one.
Yeah I'm a retial employee here and some of us live off that Sunday rate..
so tell us what the difference will be now. what industry do you work in ?
the rates are different for different retail sectors. If his pay will be 'slashed', prove it.
I've just asked for proof of his claim. Tell me how much you lose due to these cuts if it's so crippling?
All these idiots downvoting because they can't handle some questioning and an opposing point of view. Pathetic.
@murphy84:
20 ph normal hours
40 ph old penalty rate
30 ph new penalty rate
40x8=320 (old sundays)
30x8=240 (new Sunday's)
80x4=320 each month less320 a month is not nothing
@murphy84: Hey Im willing to take the place of that guy and provide my payslip IF you can guarantee me that those knobhead will not go head with this cut. A decision that make on 1000's of people behalf that essentially worse off for them. Deal ?
@talebi:
agree. $320pm x12 = $3,840 per year. That is substantial amount. Or about 8.2% cut.The worst thing I found in it though was that it mostly affects permanent staff, not casuals..
(My apologies,read it wrong first time)
Small business owners will claim they never make enough money, even if it was a million bucks.
They will never be happy.Its called Capitalism!
It's like a capitalism triangle.
Boss steals from staff & customers
Customers steal from boss
Staff steal from bossIt all works out equal in the end
As an accountant who actually knows how much money a range of small retail business owners make I can tell you that they make a lot less money than everyone thinks.
Thank you
Thank you for saying that…
Employees have no f$%king idea how much tax we have to pay.Agreed . Worst when you are in budget price food retail under franhicse agreement in high rental shopping centres. Need proof :
Just look at who is always working on Saturday and Sundays - the bosses !!
The small businesses that are making millions are normally in high value added products and only open on weekdays . Proof - drive around the industrial areas and most of them are closed on Saturdays and Sundays and they are mAking enough money paying normal minimum wages during the weekdays . It's just a common sense calculation .
If they make that much money there's nothing stopping you or any other retail worker going off and starting your own business. Starting a business has never been easier with the help of technology. Go risk your savings or take out a loan and give it a go. Most people wouldn't though because they're too afraid to take the risk. I don't see why a business owner would have to pay you more than the market dictates when you've risked nothing/invested nothing (whether it's in a business or in your own education to upskill) whilst the business owner has borne all the risk and probably has spent years working 7 days a week on minimal to low pay to build the business to where it is now.
It's a pretty simple equation - the greater the risk and the more you're willing to invest, the greater the potential return.
From the interviews I've seen, none of the small businesses are going to remove the surcharge.
HashtagboycottretailSunday push back against pollies cronies and big business. This wont stop at hospitailty… this is the first chip.
What is the reasoning behind different penalty rates for different fields of work?
The weekend is family time. I work every weekend mean I miss out family events different fields have type and time they need work done that how i sean it.
so do car salesmen and real estate agents.
so do astronauts
Not many are on $16 per hour
The question then is; why does your employer owe you weekend/family time?
You can choose not to work those weekends if you don't think it's worth your time.
Short answer is it is a hodge-podge of individual negotiations relevant the various sectors over the years. Basically one group was more successful than the next in convincing the relevant government body that they should be paid more. The employment requirements in Australia are a complete shambles.
It's my understanding the aim was actually more a balance between allowing businesses to stay open if the demand is there and rewarding employees for their work on weekends… Can't say the implementation was overly well done, but the aim I agree with.
Different level of educations and training require to practice in other fields of work and the amount of people available/willing to work in those field on weekend and holiday.
Sunday penalties havent made sense for 20+ years. Ask anyone in hospitality/retail, Saturdays are the worst day to work!
Saturdays suck too, but the idea of paying people more to work on the days their kids aren't at school and their family/friends in other jobs don't have to deserves compensation.
If people got paid the same to work any hours, and were free to choose their hours, not many would pick nights or weekends.The business council forgets that they will find filling weekend shifts harder with lower penalties, and that pay cuts will result is less money in their customer's pockets.
In saying that, for as long as Sunday penalties have been around, what proportion of staff working on a Sunday have been younger.
Sure, there's management, but my experience with Sunday is that it's all the school kids/uni students that aren't necessarily available to work when the pay rate is 1x.
In saying that, I've also heard that elsewhere part of the intention is to help get extra staff on. We all know this is BS and lower wages will just go to beefing up the bottom line.
The juniors get paid lower base rates, making them attractive to businesses who don't care if they hire less mature workers (who often do as good or better job than adults, but I digress).
This cuts their pay too.
My teen always takes Sunday shifts if available at retail because of the penalties. I'll ask if she will be as keen with lower penalties. My guess is yes, but a bit less so, and not in the current way where she will give up non-work activities to get the penalty boost. I think employers will find that without the extra penalty incentive being as high, it will be commensurately harder to get staff.I really hope employees resist working on Sundays however I am afraid that many people will be powerless and be "forced" to work on Sunday or have their shifts "phased out"
So I asked my 16yro, who did a shift at Woolies today.
She thinks she will decline Sundays more often now, as it suits her last minute nature to do her homework Sunday, and if there is no financial incentive, she doesn't see the benefit over working a Saturday, and that is marginal over picking up a couple of short weeknight shifts.
She has that luxury, as the mortgage gets paid and food is on the table whether she works or not. Plenty of her co-workers pay the bills and won't be as free to decline shifts, whatever the pay.
She did say the union rep was at work today and had a talk to her about this decision. She wasn't really clear on the substance, and in my view the SDA has been complicit in getting us here with their poor enterprise bargaining agreements, but at least they turned up.The Fair Work Commission moved Sunday penalty rates down to a level in line with Saturday rates. The big problem with Woolies (worked there for 5 years) is that you don't get any penalty rates at all on Saturday day shifts (Thank you SDA).
So will this change mean that the SDA will negotiate to have zero penalty rates on Sunday day shifts as well?
@l7unningMan:
Who knows?
There was a court case regarding those SDA EBAs which invalidated some of them.
I'm not sure what the status is.
I expect that all EBAs will be renegotiated in time to reflect the lower award penalties.
I suppose some EBAs will reference the award pay rates so might automatically adjust.
If businesses struggle to find employees for weekend work, can't they just opt to increase wages for those hours? Rather than have it regulated, can't the 'market' decide and balance itself out?
in an ideal world thats the way it should be
but since we do not live in anything close to an ideal world, if we leave business to decide, they will set it so low that centrelink will look lucrative
This will only work if there is an equal balance of power in the negotiation.
If you need to pay rent and the boss says work Sunday or don't come back Monday, what are you going to do?
Note also the union representing retail has been corrupt (my opinion) and failed members in recent years.@humdingaling: totally agree. That's the whole point of regulations is to force all parties to play fairly. Not just pick a D choose how they want to do that, because like you said it won't happen or it will be a marginal increase at best.
What above said especially considering many people work during the week as is.
No they won't. People will just have to stick it up. It's a huge win for employers.
Completely agree. Saturdays are exactly the same as Sunday in terms of family/friends availability, but no-one cares about that.
Try and reduce the Sunday penalty rate though and people are up in arms… they should really make the two days on par in terms of penalty rates, either by introducing it on Saturday, or cutting it from both.
Sure. Make them both double time.
yeah, because why should businesses make any money on weekends right?
No one owes the company a living. If it can't make money on the weekends it shouldn't rob it's employees to do so.
Paying someone $38 an hour for working retail is robbing them huh? How bout $48 an hour for public holidays?
Ask yourself if paying someone those figures is fair.
If you were running a cafe, food outlet or clothing store do you think it's fair to pay them $38 an hour because it's Sunday?It's completely absurd and UNFAIR to the people who are providing the jobs and tax $ from those jobs.
Why is it just the enployees that matter?
Why can't both sides have it fair?If I'm running my cafe and I'm charging 10% extra and my employee is giving up time with their family you bet it's fair. But most workers aren't getting $48/hr. Many aren't even being paid for their work at all and many of those that are are getting more like $10/hr even though it's illegal.
http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/great-student-swindle…
So cry me a river!
You can't charge 10% extra because most competitors aren't and there will be public backlash.
If people choose to work under illegal conditions that's their decision. But the majority of small businesses owners are doing the right thing and paying fairly and often above the award rate wage.
How many places do you think are charging an extra 10% on Sundays? At most it would be 25% and only in the food sector. So MAYBE 25% of retail food operators would do it- and that's being very generous as an estimate.
Should the price of a shirt go up on a Sunday too? How bout groceries? Should they go up 50% if you buy them on Sunday?
A big mac?Why don't real estate agents or people who work in other areas like sports or car sales people get 200% on Sunday or a public holiday?
If you choose to work retail, accept that part of the deal may include working weekends. And guess what? You're STILL getting 150% of the weekday rate!!!And YES, most casual workers ARE getting $48 an hour on Public holidays and $35+ on Sundays. Some get over $60 an hour on public holidays! You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You can't charge 10% extra because most competitors aren't and there will be public backlash.
You misunderstand. A lot of places ALREADY have a 10% surcharge on Sundays. Dominos pizza just added that a handful of weeks ago. So what you're telling me you CAN'T do is being done!
If people choose to work under illegal conditions that's their decision.
Yes it is their decision not to starve to death.
But the majority of small businesses owners are doing the right thing and paying fairly and often above the award rate wage.
Perhaps at one time…now exploitation seems rife
A quarter of a million underpaid in union deals
http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/sold-out-…Dozens of students in Wollogong underpaid by many businesses
http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/great-student-swindle…7/11 illegal workers and selling Visas
http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/7eleven-i…Domios illegal workers and selling Visas
http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2017/the-dominos-effect/I'm not going ot answer the rest. Your "let them eat cake" attitude .
I could go through the rest of your post line by line and destroy it, but I have better things to do.
Again, the majority of employers do the right thing. Posting links to 7/11 and dominos cases of scandal do not change the fact that the large majority do the right thing. And just because dominos charge 10% on a $6 pizza does not mean when 2 competing cafes on the same street will do the same thing. Whoever does in any competitive market will lose business.
Please go through my post line by line. It obviously got too hard and you had 'better things to do' when you couldn't come up with any other fluff.
Absolutely clueless.
What are you basing your stats on? The Wollongong student labour story is downright damning. So is the quarter million figure from the SDA stort. Major companies and small players alike seem to be doing the wrong thing en masse. You are the one being wilfully ignorant and denying reality here. The irony of your let them eat cake attitude and then calling me clueless is just sad.
Companies aren't going broke. They're doing better than ever and cutting workers wages.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/compan…
Did you even read the article?
The article says mainly mining and financial businesses because small business and retail are floundering and they employ most people.
Some businesses SHOULD FAIL. No one owes a business its existence or profitability. There are lots of reasons, some outside the control of the company, most within and should be adapted to. And failing is not an excuse to try to extract it from your employees. There is no reason to care if these businesses employee people if they're going to employ them as working poor. Those businesses should die so that profitable ones that can afford to pay their employees can take their place.
You can downvote me till you go blue. It doesn't make you right about underpaying workers. And who do you think are the customers of those businesses anyway? Why is it people who believe they are master capitalists so often shoot themselves square in the foot!? Who's going to frequent your business when they're broke!?
I havent downvoted you at all. You're talking out of your ass and doing so repeatedly.
People arent going broke when they get paid $33 an hour for working Sunday. They arent going broke on $48 an hour on public holidays either.I am asking for people like you to consider the retail business side ofnthe argument rather than just focusing on making sure that workers are overpaid. You don't give a shit about the people who create the jobs.
Business isn't 200% better on Sundays so why shoud they pay 200% wages?
Its not 175% better either but theyre still paying it and have done so for the last q0 years.$38 on a sunday simply isn't fair no matter how successful your business is. $33 is a huge rate, and still hurts employers, but its much fairer than $38 an hour for retail work that some people are willing to do under the table in dodgy businesses for $20 an hour cash in hand.
People arent going broke when they get paid $33 an hour for working Sunday. They arent going broke on $48 an hour on public holidays either.
And companies are going broke when I link to an article about them doing better than ever?
You're talking out of your ass and doing so repeatedly.
Oh really? I'm the one huh? Learn some comprehension skills. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder.
IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO HIRE PEOPLE AT UNSOCIABLE HOURS, DON'T HIRE THEM THEN. SHUT UP SHOP FOR THOSE HOURS. It's not hard. Stop being one of the people that's taken Australia from a "fair go" to a "third world go".
@syousef:
Those companies arent hiring sunday workers. They are hiring full time salary workers. The article had nothing to do with penalty rates and i pointed this out and you're still crapping on.You are what's wrong with Australia. A disgusting sense of self entitlement and a welfare state.
$33 an hour and you think people are being given the hard shaft. You're delusional and have zero grasp on the reality of small business economics.
Stop being one of those people who thinks that Australia should be a welfare state and people should be given everything regardless of who pays for it.
Sorry but I'm not paying to read the article. Clearly you're not starving if you're paying for online newspapers.
"A disgusting sense of self entitlement and a welfare state." - This is how you talk about workers expecting to be paid? I already explained to you that a lot of the workers affected aren't getting paid $33/hr - they're not even being paid what they should be paid. If you think a business deserves to keep running when it can't pay it's staff properly I think you're the one who's "delusional and have zero grasp on the reality of small business economics."
Stop repeating me that people getting paid is welfare repeatedly. Disgraceful and unAustralian!!!
do the google trick. copy the URL into a google search and click through from there. bypasses most of these paywalls.
its probably the best article i've read on the subject
Who isnt being paid $33 an hour?
If you are an adult working in retail on sunday you will get 150% of your normal hourly wage.$22 an hour on a tuesday is $33 on a sunday.
On a public holiday its $44. Supervisors get even more than that.Again, how is 150% of the normal rate being underpaid?
You refuse to acknowledge any of the facts being presented so good bye.
You have a short memory. We've already had the discussion about who isn't being paid properly above. You dismissed a quarter of a million workers getting below award wages due to SDA union negotiated EBA, dozens of young people in Wollongong being underpaid and not paid at all and 2 large company scandals hiring foreign workers and withholding pay with the phrase "If people choose to work under illegal conditions that's their decision.".
Well sunshine if you choose to open your business on a Sunday that's your decision and if you don't like Australian wages I suggest you offshore your operation to a country where you can pay below subsistence wages to your virtual slaves and continue to whine about their "disgusting sense of self entitlement and a welfare state". You won't be missed!
And all those people you are talking about are not getting a fair go, and those problems should be looked at. But those issues have nothing to do with Sunday penalty rates on which this entire conversation was began about. You're trying to drag all these other industries and corporate salary/wage issues into an argument about Sunday penalty rates and public holiday pay.
We are talking about legally employed people and legally operated business who are abiding by the rules. None of those things above have anything to do with legally operating businesses and their employees.
This is about employees now getting 150% penalty rates on Sunday instead of the 175% rate they were getting.
You've been trying to insinuate that going down to 150% from 175% is going to put these workers in the same boat as the illegal workers or a Wollongong situation. They have nothing to do with each other. Nothing.This discussion is about law abiding businesses and law abiding employees and changing the average Sunday hourly rate from $38 to $33.
You keep avoiding this and say 'don't open on Sundays if you want a 3rd world country' which again, ignores the fact that Businesses aren't twice as busy, or even 175% as busy on Sundays, so paying 175% and 200% wages in unfair to business owners. We need a fair business environment otherwise there will be less investment in small business because it's too hard to make money when our wage % costs are the highest in the world. Those SDA union awards again, having nothing to do with this. They aren't being affected by these cuts yet you keep returning to that argument like it's relevant. Not sure how many times you have to be told: completely irrelevant to this discussion.These changes make Sunday trading fairer for retail businesses. Retail employees still get 150% of the weekday award, and businesses can get their wages costs down slightly and potentially hire more people for less cost.
You're so caught up in the notion of people getting less penalty rates, that you never once stopped to consider that perhaps people were getting paid way too much on a 175% Sunday rate, in an environment which is already making it tougher for small businesses to succeed and make an average living.The people who own the shops in your local food court are not the rich, private jet setting tycoons you think they are. Your 'workers eat' businesses starve mentality is what is wrong with unions in the retail environment. These are local citizens who provide local jobs, not some giant mining corporation or multi national store chain just milking the public for money and revenue.
Again, those sob stories you've googled are sad, but they have nothing to do with this argument.
But hey, you'll probably go back to them and ignore everything I've said like you have the last 4 times.That has to be the weakest argument I've ever heard in my life. It's all about how employers - and not just small business - are looking for ways to cut into the standard of living.
Again. If you don't want to pay fair wages and think they're ridiculous, go start your business somewhere where the wages are lower. Don't expect a pat on the back for lowering wages here.
And again. Your customers are the same demographic as your employees. When all those workers have less money to spend on the stuff you're selling, you'll go bust. Look up Tragedy of Commons.
I'm tired of repeating the same things. You just don't get it, because you choose not to.
You have to have a thick skin to deal with Ozbargainers it seems.
Keep on patting each other on the back. Did you know that the more popular your opinion is, the truer it becomes? #alternatefact
This is what you get for voting in Turnbullshit and his fatcat friends. We can only hope you do not forget this when you go to vote next time.
You realise he doesn't actually set the penalty rates? He actually has no impact on these at all, other than saying (exactly as Labour said) "we will abide by the Fair Work Commission's decision"
*PS didn't vote for him, merely pointing out a fact
You do realise his government decides whoo is on the Commission making the decision, though.
https://ministers.employment.gov.au/cash/appointments-fair-w…
It's like saying Trump has no say in how his hotels are run now his sons are in charge…
Actually i did NOT know that! Thanks for telling me that, and not just attacking me instead haha
It goes both ways. The ALP stacks it with ex-unionists when they are in power. It is like the US Supreme Court, whoever is in charge gets to set the rules.
@mskeggs: Except clearly the existing Commissioners do not need to die or retire, they just get pushed
You do realise that 4 of the 5 commissioners were appointed by Labour, and even the fair work commission was set up by labour
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/the-hypocrisy-be…
Apologies for misleading. This is correct.
4 of the 5 commissioners listed on the decision were appointed under Labor.The commissioners are appointed by the government and serve till age 65:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/members-panelsThe unions aren't on the side of the workers anymore anyway.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/hamburgle…
@syousef:
Yeah, what a disgrace.
Everyone with any power sells out their integrity to the first bidder that comes along.I love how this comment is being upvoted even after it was proven incorrect.
People just love believing what they want to believe when it suits them.@murphy84:
Which comment are you referring to? I think many people would be up-voting multiple comments in this thread as it was civil and informative.@mooboy:
That the liberal government made these changes. It was labor's fsir work committee with 4 of 5 labor appointed members who made the decision after reviewing the findings.
Took them ages to realise but better late then never. I was kinda involved in an Escape Room business a few years back and just sitting some Uni kid at a table with an iPad cost the business ~$55 an hour even though tickets for the rooms were $15 for a 45min game.
It is simply insanity. Not an advocate of 7-11/Domino style wage fraud, but it is a product of these dumb laws.
I think the 7-11/Domino style wage fraud is due to the head office guys creaming off a lot of the profit from the franchise model and not providing the right sort of support for the franchisee to make a living. It isn't the poor schmo working the weekend shift that is making the millions.
Why didn't you seek out such a lucrative job?
Is it because you value having public holidays off?Why didn't you seek out such a lucrative job?
Didn't I just say I was kinda involved with the business?
Is it because you value having public holidays off?
Sunday is not a public holiday, nor is it sacrilegious to work on weekends in our modern society.
I'm not religious, but would much rather have the same days of the week/evenings off that my kids and family do (although my partner works shifts), than have a Monday and Tuesday off.
If somebody offers me penalty rates I would be more likely to consider working those less sociable hours.Why didn't you seek out such a lucrative job?
Didn't I just say I was kinda involved with the business?So you didn't see any difference between working weekends and holidays or normal work days? If so, you can benefit from penalty rates that would pay you more to work unsociable hours if you don't care when you work.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.
My comments are 100% about Sunday and only Sunday penalty rates, never said anything more. I'm not even against the idea of penalty rates.
For one, why are Sunday rates even higher than Saturday rates or further why are public holiday rates higher than any other rate? If we are going to talk about what's sociable you wouldn't discriminate against certain days as long as you found your off-work days aligning with everyone elses free time.
That is the point of this move, to get our laws in sync with society today. There is nothing different with Sunday (And yes after these rate drops it's still the highest paid day) so as such you shouldn't be compensated any more than what makes sense.
But saying it doesn't make sense to have aligned time off on weekends and public holidays because some people work those days begs the question.
Australia agreed to allow Sunday trading even though it is detrimental to our community's non-financial welfare because businesses desired it and were prepared to pay penalties for those who worked the unsociable hours.To turn around a couple of decades later and say "having disrupted weekends/time-off is now normal, so shouldn't be as heavily compensated" shows that the original people arguing against relaxing weekend trading laws for the risk of a slippery slope were correct.
Small businesses can trade any time they want without paying the owners any penalty rates. That it costs more to get a plumber on the weekend shows there is value in having weekends free to people who could trade on those days for no extra. This ruling is 100% about cutting costs for large businesses to increase shareholder returns.
A bit crappy for those working, I wonder if businesses will remove their "Sunday surcharge" now though ?