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
@plmko:
If your business can't afford to employ staff at the Sunday rate, you have a marginal business, not one that needs charity of your workers to take a pay cut to prop you up.
Please link the studies you cite, because there are not any that show increased employment results from minor wage decreases.
There are undoubtedly "surveys" of business owners saying they might employ more, but faced with choosing pocketing the wage savings and expanding the staff pool…To be clear, the problem in employment in Australia is not a lack of low paying work. our biggest issue is that existing policies have sharply driven casualisation and other erosions of workplace conditions, so we have a lot more people working hourly jobs who would much prefer a solid full time position.
This decision just adds to the problem.Frankly, it is disgusting.
Wait till the results of this filter through to lower GDP and earnings and you will hear all the excuses that we need a more "flexible" economy to compete, as if there is an alternative to buy a cappuccino from Shenzhen or Hanoi on a Sunday.
@plmko: Problem is, they're taking money off from the poor guy. It's not like they have thousands of dollars as dispensable income. Ones who do work in these industries with penalty rates are the least paid in our society, that is with penalty rates.
Aren't we supposed to reduce the wealth gap? Not increase it?
We all know how your income sets your expenses; this means these workers can't have little luxuries like a brand name jam jar at the table for their kids, instead, store own brand would be there now. That's the reality. Hot showers will be short, during the winter heaters won't be on for long. This is how their quality of life decreases with pay cuts.For them, every cent matters! These people struggle to make their ends meet. Not their employers.
If they really cared about business owners, they could've introduced a tax cut to small businesses, instead of thieving off from the poor bugger!
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You say you'd much rather have the same days off as your kids and family, and while you'd consider working less sociable hours, you think it's more likely people who don't care when they work end up working the Sundays.
By definition then, people who don't care/aren't affected by the penalty rates end up working those days, which means it makes no difference whether those days have penalty rates or not.
So if Sunday trading is that detrimental to your welfare, why work on Sunday? I don't understand.
If anything Sunday trading = more employment
@PhilipJWitow:
I don't think I am contradicting myself, because the number of people who don't care is very small, and the available work is large.
If you think there are plenty who don't care, try getting a tradesperson, who largely set their own hours, to come on a weekend for the same charge as a weekday.People need to be convinced to work Sundays/Public Holidays because most would rather not. One way to do that is with a carrot of higher pay, the other is with fear of losing your job or hours.
With the carrot reduced, I think the stick will increase. I think that is substantially worse for society than the cost of higher penalties.
If you didn't like working on a Wednesday, would your boss be happy to let you take it off?
Nearly every employee has limited flexibility in the hours they work to 'just take it off'. And every retail/hospitality employee who routinely works Sundays just got a pay cut equivalent to working 2 hours free.Its a free market. You are welcome to find a job that lets you take Sunday off?
Your comment is very exaggerated - not every retail/hospitality employee is subjected to the pay cut
No, but all the retail and hospitality workers who get Sunday penalties did.
Retail and hospitality make up around 18% of the workforce, and while they don't all work Sundays, those that do will have a pay cut equivalent to working two hours for free.
Workforce breakdown: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm…It is a large number of people, and it isn't people earning above average wages.
@mskeggs:
businesses desired it but businesses most certainly didn't desire paying 175% to 200% of the normal rate just because it's a Sunday.Businesses will do it if they are going to make money for their time. Under the current conditions, most businesses do not.
Remember we're not just talking about woolies and coles and Kmart here, we're talking about Greg and Janet who live 5 doors down the road and have a shop at the local Westfield food court. Greg is probably already in there on Sundays to keep costs down, doing the work of 2 people and had worked 6 days in a row. Maybe 10 days in a row. He's provided jobs to the two school kids and one adult in there with him. He's invested in this business and borrowed against his home loan.
Greg isn't making more than 60K a year before tax and will eventually close.
Now we can question whether Greg should have gone into business in the first place, but without Greg, those 3 people won't have had that job, and if those people taking a 25% pay cut on Sundays means they will get to keep their jobs, I think it's fair to say they would probably agree.
They'll still be getting 150 to 175% of the weekday rate, but Greg can actually make $100 on that day rather than work for nothing and falling deeper into a hole.The conditions for retailers in Australia are simply terrible. Wages, rent, poor retail environment with property prices so high. Something has to give.
@murphy84: Exactly, maybe if they just allowed small businesses to have these pay cuts instead of big as well. I'm sure big businesses have more profits and can afford to pay for weekend workers. My parents work on Saturdays for free because we don't make enough money that day while working 150% harder. I'm trying to convince them to close on Saturday, but they are too scared of losing customers.
While you're right, easy jobs that don't deserve the high penalty rate might make up 5% of the jobs. The majority of the other 95% is going to be working flat out, at unsociable hours in hellish conditions. They will be forced to work by employers threatening to fire them or cut shifts if they don't do it.
Yes the system is deeply flawed, but this just made it worse.
5%? Where'd you get this number from?
Any retail food outlet that doesn't have an enterprise agreement (ie the ice cream store owned by Bob and Sarah) is paying its casual staff over the age of 19 at least $40 an hour on a public holiday. That's while also (on the same day) paying their permanent employees a full day's wages for the public holiday (and superannuation).
If Bob is in there with three 20 year old girls helping him serve, he's paying $120 an hour and also paying his full time workers their normal salary while they're at home. If Bob isn't in there and puts one of his full time workers in on the public holiday, he pays another $40 an hour plus the normal $23 an hour rate he would have paid them for working that Monday weekday (plus super).
Is Bob making any money on this day? Can't these employees get paid 25% less in a fairer system?
Australia is the only country in the world where some 20 year old kids can get paid $40 an hour for working retail food.
Australia is the only country in the world where it's possible to make $54 an hour working in retail food or at a retail clothing store.It just doesn't make economic sense.
I made it up, because it sounds right and was likely to receive positive support. Where did you get this Bob figure, who is running a business so popular that he needs to hire 3 people to deal with the customers, but can't afford to pay a few extra bucks to the people making that happen? And why is Bob paying his full time workers more than he needs to on public holidays if he's so strapped for cash?
Australia might be the only country where this happens, but that's one of the reasons we live here, isn't it? Why are you so desperate to turn Australia into a copy of some other country?
@outlander:
"I made it up, because it sounds right and was likely to receive positive support."That's some honest dishonesty right there. Interesting to see you're capitalising on the high emotional tension, I suppose.
"Australia might be the only country where this happens, but that's one of the reasons we live here, isn't it?"
No, I live in Australia because I was born here…
You think that a business that has 3 people working a shift +an owner is 'so busy' it's just rolling in cash?
Bob has to pay his full time staff for public holidays either way. It doesn't matter if he has casuals or full timers he's still paying someone the penalty rates for working that day AND the full timers who are at home. So on a public holiday Monday he's paying the full time staff their normal hourly rate (plus super + sick leave) while they are at home AND he's paying whoever is working a public holiday rate.
The point is this isn't sending Australia into the dark ages and people making $33 an hour on Sunday instead of $38 are still making great money for working the Sunday. Employers have been paying too much for the last 10 years in Australia and this is a slight correction needed to ensure fairness for BOTH the employer and the employees.
The fact (irony) of these Sunday/penalty wage cuts is that the Labor government put the Fair Work commission in place. That same Fair work commission ran an independent inquiry looking at both sides of the issue. With 4 of the 5 panel members who made this decision being elected by the previous Labor government.
These 5 panel members decided, upon the findings by this investigation by the team they appointed, that Sunday rates and Public holiday rates were too high in Australia and were detrimental to the feasibility of small businesses in Australia and to the economy in general.Thank you =)
Honesty has no place in a dishonest conversation with dishonest people.If your living here only because you were born here, maybe it's time to look around? If you have money and lack a conscience, there are better places.
You don't have to open if it doesn't add up… easy .. what you said really is , it doesn't make as much money as you wish …
A lot of businesses don't have a choice.
Shopping centres have rules.Seems much fairer to stay open and pay workers 33$ an hour instead of $38 an hour.
i'm all for people getting a bit extra for working on the weekend but double your pay for working sundays? it just doesn't make sense. it's fine if you are woolies or maccas and can get away with hiring 12 year olds so the base pay is $3 an hour, but when you have to hire adults who get paid $20 or more an hour, the penalties would have stopped many businesses from opening on the weekend, or the owners just running the business themselves.
on the other side, sure some workers will make a bit less on the weekend, but if more stores open on the weekend, or stay open longer, there could be more people employed, and potentially more money earned overall.
Do you currently work Sundays and Public Holidays to take advantage of penalties? Or do you prefer to have those days as leisure?
if more stores open on the weekend, or stay open longer, there could be more people employed, and potentially more money earned overall.
Do you think customers have more money to spend if the stores are open longer? Where will this extra income be sourced from? How many businesses do you encounter closed because of labour costs? Will parliament be open on weekends to improve legislative efficiency?
not currently. many years ago when I did, I only needed to work 4 days a week so I got 3 days off instead.
do you currently work Sundays? you've been questioning a lot of people but not speaking from experience yourself. I currently have 2 jobs working 6 days and i receive no penalty rates.,…go get that extra buck that you have been referencing over and over again…or i could sit here and complain and not chase the $$$.
I don't work Sundays or get penalty rates in my job.
In my family one kid gets penalties, she said she will be less likely to take Sunday shifts but it is pocket money for her, not having to pay rent.
My partner works shift work which includes a lot of unsociable hours. She won't be affected by this change, but her work reminds me that all hours in the week are not equal, and that people who are working hours others would rather not deserve extra pay for doing so.The bulk of people complaining about penalty rates here are people who don't have to work unsociable hours for no extra pay, or are in work where they attract no penalties. I don't think they are good candidates to judge whether cutting a worker's penalties is unfair or not.
That a minority of people see no difference in working Weekends or Weekdays doesn't mean there is no difference.
@mskeggs: though i agree with most of your statement, I work Saturdays for no penalty rates. I have a 15month who i would much prefer spend my time with, but i can't and don't. So contrary to what you suggest, i do see a difference between weekdays and weekends, yes i am sorta in the boat, but i'm trying to view it from both sides. Yes I'm not making what a lot of 'battlers' are claiming to make, but I adapt. People adapt.
Of course someone who has their penalty rates cut back will criticise the decision and lament it unfair. What did you expect?
That doesn't offer an objective view at all.
Objectively, retail and hospitality workers who work Sunday's just suffered a pay cut equal to working two hours free. For the record, this does not impact me financially, although it does make the society I live in a little worse.
I personally think that most people agree that there should be some level of compensation for workers who work non-standard hours. And I can objectively discuss what a fair level of compensation is, after all, different occupations get different award conditions so reasonable people can clearly disagree about what level of compensation is fair. Some highly paid occupations don't even get any compensation for unsociable hours.This decision explicitly reduces the pay of of workers who earn less than 3/4 of the average age (assuming they are paid award) for the direct benefit of business owners and shareholders, a group who typically have higher wealth.
It is a bad decision because it increases inequity, and it is a bad decision because it priorities financial outcomes over social.You can disagree that inequity is important, or say the social outcomes should be less important than financial, but it isn't a lack of objectivity that has me arguing these positions.
Just coming back to this because your comment really struck home to me, as it resonates with a lot of things I hear from people who are earning pay packets above award, so lack some of the protections that come with award conditions, yet are trying to piece together the best lives for their family they can.
I think it is incredibly hard to answer this, and we see it in the policy hot mess that is both major parties approach to working families. They give with one hand, then slap it away with the other.I am empathetic, because when I had a 15 month old our family really struggled to work out how to adapt our careers and income. It is a scary, disruptive time for families who really should be given some more constructive help in terms of workplace flexibility rights and maybe a period of tax relief for childcare/pre-school.
But the change at issue here is for people who earn a bit under $50k if they work full time, plus a bit more in penalties should they give up their Sunday with their family or friends to work. Remember the average full time income is over $80k, so these aren't wealthy people.
But it was them who were chosen to take a pay cut equivalent of working 2 hours for free each Sunday.
I hope my guess that the reason you aren't paid penalties for your Saturday work that is a necessary time away from your family is right, and that you do get that higher income. If i have grabbed the wrong end of the stick and that isn't so, please don't judge me harshly - we all do the best we can, and I'm arguing for continued generous penalties not because your work on a Saturday isn't valuable, but because I think you should be recognised for the extra burden it places.
Problem is you're not being objective. You're only looking at it from the workers side, not the business owner's side aswell.
You're saying it's a oaycut for employees but Australian retail workers have been and still will be the highest paid retail workers in the world.
Look at it like this:
Australian businsesses have been paying too much in labor costs for the last 25 years. In the last 7 years it's gotten even harder as rates have continued to go up.
200% and 250% rates are simply not fair for businesses.
The rates will still be 175% and 150% which are still the highest paid retail workers in the world.
Workers have had it very very good for a very long time and this finding by fair work proves that. A slight reduction is what was needed to give small business in Australia any chance of coping.People keep bringing up struggling small businesses as the motivation for these changes.
Considering the government is happy to provide a range of different conditions and obligations to support small business, why is it reasonable that Coles/Woolies/McDonalds/KFC and the large chains get the benefit of this wage cut? All of these large businesses will retain the same opening hours and staff levels they currently operate and book the reduced labour costs as increased profit.I am looking at this pay cut from the point of view of the worker, because they are the ones suffering a substantial pay cut if they are working Sundays.
I completely believe there are a small number of mum and dad businesses who will benefit from this, but I'm not very happy about them (who chose to go into business) and big businesses benefitting at the expense of workers who were employed on the basis of penalty rates.If you are concerned about high pay rates - which I am not as your highest in the world figures are from when the mining boom was red hot and the AUD was worth $1.05USD - then you need to consider what precisely you are worried about. Is the issue that people who "only" do retail work are still paid 5/8ths* of the average wage? How much less would you think is fair?
*based on 40hours a week as a shop assistant on award versus the avg full time income of $80k+@mskeggs: Hey MsKeggs. Thanks for your reply and extensive explanation…i think this has been a more constructive approach to the general argument and more people would agree with your view on this subject.
My parents are immigrants and growing up, they both relied on OT due to their low income and i used to get angry because i felt they'd never spend time with me like my friends and their parents did…i put that down to ignorance on my part. Hopefully with the change now, companies do something to combat the loss income. Whether it now promotes extra hours during the week or whatever. We will never lose the 'Aussie Battler' slogan…face value it's what makes us us…in reality, the government isn't really doing much to erase it.
You know what? Glass half full
It's always good to nut things out…something those politicians on 6 figures salaries should try doing every now and then.
but if more stores open on the weekend, or stay open longer, there could be more people employed, and potentially more money earned overall.
Good old trickle down economics, amirite?
It's not as if these businesses are becoming increasingly automated, and hence are already pocketing the difference as it is anyway.
If these businesses are becoming increasingly automated wouldn't that be more in favour of decreasing artificially inflated penalty rates?
For better employment opportunities, wouldn't you rather a business choose between employing a person who costs them $30/hr rather than $40/hr or run a machine that might cost $35/hr to operate.
When i was younger i worked at Maccas and Coles and i never got paid double time on a Sunday. It was time and half? So who exactly is getting double time?
Can I ask when you were at Maccas, when I was there circa 2010, we were under an agreement that saw a slightly higher hourly rate instead of penalty rates on the weekends. So therefore we got paid the same on Tuesday as we did on Sunday.
lol i left in 2004 i think.
Ah… Old school. If I stayed any longer than I did, I would've started losing my mind with all the new items. I like the old days of Maccas before all the Angus and that nonsense.
@tomsco: Yea but we had the Ozburger and we always had promos i loved the monster burger that was good.
yeah same here, at coles my permanent hours on sunday are paid at 1.5 and casual hours 1.75.
Yea i was part-time because they made us.
Yeah this is one thing people are missing. The biggest businesses like Coles and Woolies already pay their staff less in penalty rates. These are negotiated with the retail workers union. This decision does not affect all low wage workers in hospitality and retail.
In return those with reduced penalty rates like woolies/Cole's have base rates above the award.
What reducing the penalty rates means for those guys is reduced bargaining power in new agreements.
There was a massive independent review of MPs packages and benefits that basically suggested they all should be removed and it is a colossal waste of money for the nation. Yet Pensioners and Retail works getting <750$ a week are the ones we are taking from.
The MP in the country are a joke and are the biggest criminals
This country is going down the s***ter because of poor/corrupt leadership
I can understand that small businesses might struggle with penalty rates but for F*** sake in most cases you OWN A BUSINESS meaning you have significantly more money then the guy working for $18 an hour.
The real people benefiting from this is those who could easily afford to pay the extra couple of $ and those suffering are the ones struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.
Getting though uni it was the Sunday penalties and public holiday money they kept me afloat. Love how people who support these changes have no idea how hard it is to work at Coles the vampires or Slaveway (woolworths) for little money.
Australia is one of the least corrupt compared to other countries (especially the US).
The politicians are inept but not corrupt.
@dpgrubesic
Exactly, I worked retail and hospitality during Uni, living away from home basically being an adult from a week after turning 18, paying rent, groceries, all bills etc.
I was at Maccas before going to actual retail and worked Friday and Saturday nights until 2am when the store closed, with the after midnight Saturday falling into Sunday penalty rates.
I honestly don't think I would have been able to survive without penalty rates as I was scraping by as it was.
This change only affects full time and part time(?) staff is my understanding so it wouldn't have directly affected me as I was a casual.
But….
The thing to keep in mind is that if it works out cheaper, I am sure full time and part time staff will have their rosters altered to have them working on Sundays instead of the 15 year old kids or 18 year old Uni students. With casual staff potentially picking up Friday shifts if they can wrangle a day out of Uni/Tafe, just working for standard pay, which is where I would have lost out.
The way my mangers worked they were always trying to find the best possible wage outcome, as it it is generally one of the top 2 or 3 expenses to these businesses. As such, to think that casuals will not be affected even though their penalty rates have not been altered is a short sited view on the issue.
I do not pretend to understand everything about the situation but from having worked in the industry and knowing how these things are viewed, if they think they can save even a dollar by switching fulltimers onto Sunday shifts and casuals off Sundays I can guarantee that's what employers will do.
I am sure full timers will be feeling pressure to change their rosters at some point just to keep their jobs and of course they will do it as everyone else will be doing the same thing.
Someone said it before, it doesn't take much to begin down a slippery slope but this is the perfect way to start.
hotmustardsauce - Mate if you truly believe that you're lost - we are 200 years old have some of the high resources in the world and pretty much every state besides Vic and NSW is struggling.
per capita of population our politicians are the highest paid in the world.
We have no manufacturing
Mining is slowing (Due to no mining tax Gina and her buddies basically pocked millions from Australia)
We have some of the highest taxes in the world
one of the most expensive under achieving education system in the world ranked 26th
Public transport in most states in a shambles
Pension system ranked 67th in the world for looking after our elderally
Sydney 2nd and Melbourne 5th most expensive city to buy a house yet we have a population of 23 million….
Contruction workers in melbourne are the highest paid (other then NYC) due to corrupt unions funding the labour government
Our banks have done more illegal s*** then US banks and got away with it due to them funding the liberal party
Roads are even worse then the public transport
TO TOP IT ALL OFF WE HAVE THE WORST ILLEGAL SYSTEM IN THE WORLD 8 years for murder!
etc
Consider all those things and realize 200 years as a nation imagine where we will be in 200 more years
Yep I entirely agree with this. Even when I was younger I'd wonder why Australia wouldn't use its resources to its advantage. Now, I wonder why politicians get crazy retirement wages and such…it's crazy how much money those pricks earn even after their term is over. IMO, no policitician should ever earn more than $100k a year. Why? It keeps them honest and in touch. No benefits either (I.e retirement/paid travel). Further, all they do is talk and lie to us. They don't deserve all that money. When they realise what it's like to actually save money, then we will see progress. At least we should…
The money saved from politicians wages this way, should go straight to infrastructure/education/hospitals. Then, put them into resources (mining sector for example). Boost jobs in Hospitals/Education/mining. Keep pollies honest (hopefully) and keep a good budget. One might say that it's not possible, but when you look at how much each politician earns, and how much fat can be cut from that, you'll see where I'm coming from. Not just wages, as I said benefits such as retirement payments are absurd as well.
@Ahbal: Why is it that it always comes back to the politicians? If you can't beat them join them! What is stopping you from running? Sounds like you have all the solutions. You can even fix your wage at 100k! Maybe you can see what it is like to be called a prick just because of your job or the reputations of your colleagues.
I sure wouldn't want the 24/7 responsibility myself. I'll stick to my lesser pay and the trade off that comes with clocking off from my job come 5pm Friday. I'll also stick to working smarter, furthering my education and not blaming easy targets for where I'm at.
@Hardlyworkin:
Many of my friends have actually told me to run, jokingly or not. Regardless, I wont. I want to become a teacher, and train and guide the next generation, rather than look for creative ways to pocket and dime people as a politician. Besides, I doubt my ideas would get support from any of the politicians to pass anyway.
Hotmustard you are foolish if you believe what you said.
Ever heard of a guy called Eddie Obeid?
Yea right, like Obeid! not corrupt…
Don't be complacent , since 2012 , Australia score less and less each year ( more and more corrupt)
http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percepti…I am not sure why SDA could not do anything. If this was CFMEU or the likes, they'll probably get an increase instead. Maybe SDA got no powerful mates in the govvies.
So yea… government not corrupt at all. I can see from what I know, people who work in retail struggles more than those guys in constructions/mining… very fair…
SDA are neck deep in deals for the boys.
Somebody else posted the link for the enterprise bargaining deals they signed off for Woolies/Maccas/Coles and who knows who else that sold casuals and weekend workers down the river for a tiny improvement to weekday workers.
I don't have the foggiest why they have agreed to this, the Fairfax press alludes to some motivation relating to conservative Catholic politics trying to grow influence in the Labor party to combat loony left progressive social politics, but it seems nuts to me.
If you are a union, look after your members first and last.
Keep on dreaming.
More than 60% of small businesses cease to operate within the first three years. Just because you own a business doesn't mean you have significantly more money than the guy working for $18 an hour.
That person just could have taken significant risk because they weren't making ends meet as is.
It's like saying that someone who bought a house is richer than someone who rents. You don't know how much debt they have etc etc.
Smarch - 100% with you
ozbd - Business close there doors because of a lack of revenue but that isn't due to PENALTY RATES and the changes in Penalty rates wont change that statistic one bit. Businesses raise and fall for a number of reasons usually it is because of poor management and a lack of initial capital not an over-priced work force (unless you are talking about manufacturing, which we are not).
Not true, it's the wage % costs that close business doors more than any other factor.
As someone who has owned multiple businesses in retail the number one factor for businesses are location, wage costs and rent, with wage costs being the absolute highest in the world.
You just couldn't understand unless youve owned or managed a retail business.
Would love to hear from some retail managers who get to see the numbers with their boss.It's the same with pubs and clubs. If you don't have a gaming room, youre pfetty much destined to fail within 4-5 years unless you're the only place in town or have little competition.
Wages are a huge expense for a business never said it wasn't but paying penalty rates when most businesses charge a SURCHARGE to cover it doesn't excuse the pay cut to when most businesses probably wont remove the surcharge.
My brother and sister both run businesses with a couple million turnover and they would 100% disagree with me.
So maybe you are right i think most people who start businesses think they are just going to get 'get rich' without doing hard work but they dont want to be in the 65+ plus hour weeks like my siblings have done to make it profitable.
Some cafes charge a surcharge but you'll find that 90% of overall retail businesses don't charge a surcharge for public holidays and weekends etc..
You are right that businesses also fail because of bad management, but wage costs have just been too high for so long.
I think people should get paid more to work on weekends, it's just that it's pretty crazy when on a Thursday the rate is $22 an hour and on a Sunday it's $38 an hour. The new changes mean that Sundays will be $33 an hour. I just can't understand how people can complain about this without thinking about the people who pay those wages and have created those jobs.
Remember, it's not just $33 an hour. It's superannuation, sick leave, workers comp insurance etc..
@RockMeLoOn:
Actually if it's part of your regular shift it is.But I know what you are trying to say.
I'm saying that sick leave is paid on top of wages (ie it's another cost that people don't think about as a business expense).
Even if you reduce Sunday rates to $0 an hour that won't stop all the terrible businesses I see failing everyday from failing lol. A large amount fail because most people don't know what they're doing.
This decision is a real kick in the guts to employees who get paid penalty rates.
It is a straight up pay cut for doing the same work.
Nobody would like it, and nobody deserves it.It amazes me that the political party who places the most value on financial success thinks they can cut their way to prosperity.
There is not more on offer if the pie shrinks.Since all employees do the vast bulk of their earning and spending locally, yet large proportions of the shareholder/business owners are based overseas, tilting the playing field toward bigger profits for those just sends more money off shore, outside the reach of our taxes and not benefitting our communities.
It is already possible for those thinking penalty rates are too high to go get a job on weekends and holidays. There won't be many employees lining up for a pay cut to further enrich the owners.You are welcome to work Sundays for the penalties. I guess you don't because you like having that day off.
Why do you expect people to do things you won't?
How much would penalties have to be to make you work Sundays? 7 day economy!!!!
Last year, everyone wanted to work Sunday at my job for the sweet coin. And yet, you keep talking as if people don't want it. Saturdays are the real kicker
^ Doesnt have kids/family/friends/hobbies/sports obviously.
There are indirect impacts in reducing labor costs. You encourage foreign businesses to set up locally which increases overall employment. Same argument as well for decreasing corporate tax rates.
I don't think it is a good or well proven argument, but I am willing to consider any evidence you can point to that shows an acceleration of foreign investment on the back of lower wages. Quite reasonably you could argue the market is less attractive to foreigners as a part of their customer base just got a pay cut so will have less spending power.
If reducing labour costs really encouraged foreign businesses to open here, then the retailers and business council would be calling for a measure that would make their lives tougher via increased competition. I think their strenuous argument to cut penalties indicates they believe they will save much more in wages than any imaginary increase in foreign competition will cost.
Most recent example are car manufacturers shutting down plants in Australia due to high labor costs. They still sell the same amount of cars to Australians, labor is just offshored.
Woolworths/Coles are not doing well if you observe their annual reports, margins are declining. And the other local retailers have been consolidating. With the availability of self-checkout and other technologies, higher labor cost will fast track less demand for employment.
@hotmustardsauce:
Car manufacturing in Australia has been going down hill for many years. We never had the innovation like Japan or Germany to come up with new stuff that we could sell overseas (high value) and we have a very high standard of living. Most countries that produce cars have very very low wages. Before anyone comes screaming with Germany and Japan, most of their vehicles are not even built in those countries any more. A lot of it is done around the world in low labour countries.Is that where you want to head so that we are "competitive" and "attract foreign investment"
We need to innovate. We need to come up with ideas, products and services that other people want. Thats why things like education is a massive business here, its a massive export (I think recently in moved up to our third largest export)
Services make up the largest group of the employed in Australia and most of those people do not work on Sundays. We have an agreed Monday-Friday business hours schedule so that we can do business when everyone else is.
People who work outside these hours are working during much of the time they would otherwise be spending with their loved ones.
The issue of penalty rates may have originated with religion but has left a legacy where we enjoy have Saturday and Sunday as days for leisure. Those who work those days (either by choice for more money or because thats when the work is) should be compensated for the fact they are giving up time to spend with their loved ones.
I know that the penalty rates didn't get cut to zero but my opinion has always been that if it wasn't profitable to open on Sunday, then businesses shouldn't open on Sunday.
Ps. I'm still an Uber driver, so these cuts don't directly affect me but I think its a big kick in the pants to those who depend on Sundays to make enough living.
I'm interested in what your feelings would be if the ruling upped Saturday to 1.75 and dropped Sunday to 1.75?
I agree that a straight cut to wages is a bit harsh, but I also don't see why working Sunday should be any different to Saturday.I'm all for this. Its not that it was a "Sunday" move but that it was a cut with no compensation elsewhere.
Or came as part of a general wage rise so the overall wage bill remained the same.
I do think that penalties should be paid to compensate for weekend work, but the particular method here of a straight pay cut for Sunday workers is pretty unfair.
Seems ironic that it's people who don't rely on penalty rates making decisions about people who do.
We should put the Fair Work Commission on casual hospitality contracts and make them work weekends and other unsociable hours. Then they will understand the social and societal consequences of working these hours.Part of the justification is the expectation of a "24/7, seven-day-a-week economy". In reality this only extends to retail, fast food, hospitality and pharmacy. Generally white and blue collar workers do not work outside the traditional working week. It seems that we are creating an underclass of people expected to work around the clock for minimal compensation.
great assesment,
neoliberalism at it again politicians pretending that we need to be a more competitive economy and there answer is take it from the lower socioeconomic demographic all the while there corporate overlords get to keep padding the bottom line.
A simple question is who would work on the weekends if they weren't financially required too ? Seems like a pretty straight forward answer to me.
I think it's fair to say no one would work the weekends unless they were being paid double time. Unless of course they aren't tied down at all by working friends/family/children. In that case they're welcome to earn the money because it means others who don't want to work those hours don't have to.
Another thing to remember is that generally those who work the weekend get smashed by customers and those who work weekdays in retail, etc. don't.
Perhaps the fairest way to set wages would be to mirror the charges of self-employed service providers to work nights or weekends. Just because you can take advantage of others who need money doesn't mean you should. I think that people who work after 10pm should be on time and a half as well tbh as it can affect health. http://time.com/3657434/night-work-early-death/
PS I'm in a mon-fri 9-5job for last 4 years and I wouldn't go back to the extra money because it does affect quality of life, especially night work.
I wonder whether this will affect the companies that are already underpaying their workers, such as Coles, which is 1.5 times normal rates on a Sunday already (rather than the 2.0 times normal rates in other places)? Don't think they can justify slashing further.
Are Coles on a workplace agreement that sees staff get paid higher than the retail award Monday-Friday?
I know woolies are. This means for the next agreement there isn't as much to bargain with.
I don't think it applies to anyone who is currently on Enterprise Agreement, feel bad for Hospitality staff though - they hardly have EA for small restaurants.
I work under an EBA and our penalty on Sundays is 1.5, due to the "better off overall" test - we get a higher hourly rate than the award. However when the new agreement is negotiated, I'm sure Sunday rates will be reduced to 1.25.
The changes do not affect coles (Shorten even stupidly wheeeled out a retail employee from coles to complain about changes.. yet they did not affect him)
Coles has an EBA so these changes do not apply to them.Not immediately, but as above when the new agreement is negotiated, the big retailers will all use the reduction in penalty rates as an argument to lower their EBA penalty rates. No worker is immune.
It is unfortunate that a lot of people who work in the industry will now be shifting to non-retail/hospitality jobs. Smaller business will struggle all the more to retain staff, and ultimately have to negotiate higher base salaries to get new staff.
The only positive I can see from this levelling of wages is enabling a future 24/7 retail economy.Not sure how a 24/7 retail economy is an overall positive, but I think you are right about it making staffing harder.
There are a bunch of comments from people who don't work Sundays up thread saying penalty rates are too high, but given the choice, a majority of people will take Sundays off.
So without the incentive of Sunday penalties, employers will be cajoling staff to work Sundays.
At least when everyone paid Sunday penalties, everyone had an incentive.
As a result of this decision, the employers best able to staff Sundays will be the ones who threaten their employers with job losses.I'm no ideologue, I shop on Sundays when it is convenient. But I don't pretend that it is equally convenient to work on a Sunday or Public Holiday as a weekday. The idea that a 24/7 retail economy is desirable if it doesn't heavily compensate those working poor hours is very misguided.
A relative from China bemoaned the fact that small retail shops in Australia don't open to 9 or 10pm like they do in many parts of Asia. I asked her if she would be happy working from 9am to 10pm 7 days a week, like many of these family owned businesses do. "No way!" was her answer.
Funny how people are very happy to pile extra work or reduce pay for others, but totally reject the notion they should join in the sacrifice too.
sign of the times
total lack of empathy
I disagree. Yes sure some of the penalty rate earners now will leave but there's is a lot of people that are still looking for jobs.
Btw NZ functions ok without penalty rates. The only "penalty rate" you get in NZ is if you are normally working on a day (Weekday or otherwise) that falls on a public holiday and its 1.5x.
Yes hospitality workers will earn less and from their point of view this is terrible but more places there are open all week including sundays. Here in Melbourne I find many nice cafes are closed sundays due to the penalty rates.
I'm currently working in a non commission target based industry and working on Sundays, I have always delivered results so if I'm now told that performing above expectations deserves a pay cut I'm not sure what I'll do.
It'll likely lead to looking for alternative work as it's offensive regardless of what this commission has handed down.
Read the comments above. There are a bunch of people who have a sense of entitlement that allows them to view the world as themselves not being inconvenienced by such a terrible impost as a Sunday surcharge, yet also expect workers to turn up Sundays for the same pay as Saturdays (and ideally weekdays).
I don't work Sundays, but if I met somebody prepared to say to my face I deserved a pay cut for the same work to enable their convenience, I would powerfully lose my temper.
So I think your response is a lot more mature and measured than it has any right to be.penalties should not be considered a 'pay-rise' mate. They should be seen as a weekly 'bonus'. You are acting like a buffoon…as if the penalty rates have been negged altogether which they haven't. They have been matched with Saturday rates. Your issue is you have a 'people owe me shit' mindset and thats terribly unsustainable.
from the outside looking in and never being paid penalty rates, it sucks what they did, but knowing a couple of small business owners who would work 7 days a week rather than have that 1 day for the family, i don't mind the decision….tbh i dont even know how the press got to the 'up to $6000 loss for the average worker' figure.
People who work every Sunday just got a pay cut equivalent to working 2 hours for free compared to last week's pay packet.
I don't know any way of looking at that except as a rip off.The main beneficiaries of this won't be small business owners working 7 days, they could already take a weekday or two off if their business could afford to be without them. This money is coming from the pockets of workers on $900 a week and going to the owners of big businesses who already open on Sundays, doing nothing but fattening their profits.
I don't have an attitude of being owed, except what is fair. Employees were hired on penalty rates, businesses were granted Sunday trading authority in part because of the benefit penalty rates would deliver low paid workers.
Let me know the 2 hours a week you will be working for free to donate your salary to the small business owners you know working hard. Or if you don't want to, why should other employees do it?
The $6000 figure is a load of crap, you would need to earn over $923 on a Sunday ($77 an hour 12 hours or $115 an hour over 8 hours).
Realistically this is ~$60 a week out of the average pay check for predominantly low income people which is hard money to find when your already working Sundays.
@mskeggs: Ye no i agree with the overall financial standpoint of the individual, but i don't believe a lot of these employees are employed on the pure basis of a certain penalty rate. I also don't believe that it is or is not fair to have this penalty rate reduced. the 'Penalty Rate' IS the entitlement.
I believe a small number of people will struggle with this change, but not as great as the media are making it out to be. I believe some employers will now have more in the kitty to give those same staff more hours and in turn not affecting their weekly pay packet. I also believe that it's only human nature to always feel hard-done and our self-worth is always higher than what we are getting paid…but thats fine because it strives us to be a better person and employee.
@rekabkram: If the base were $20 per hour, a Sunday shift would now net less $75 for a 6-hour shift (based on most retailers being 10 - 4), which equates to just shy of $4000 for working every Sunday each year.
Casuals currently on Sundays doing 6 hours @$20 ($20 doubled, $40x 6 = $240) $12480 pa
New rate ($20x1.75 = $35x 6 =$210) $10920 pa$30 a day worse off by my math, $1560 pa. I think you may have done $12.5 an hour rather than 12.5% worse off.
And we still have penalty rates for Sunday which are higher than every other day. So what is the problem?
If you want to get cynical about it and still believe it just about cutting costs for businesses, then go read the reports of the interviews and statistics. You'll see that there is a huge correlation between businesses choosing to run on 'Skeleton crew' and Sunday penalty rates. In other words the jobs don't even exist to afford those who choose to work on Sunday.