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
@Online Bathroomware:
This is the main reason it is worth commenting on this site. People fairly criticise if there is an error, and people admit when they were mistaken. You are both good people.Should you wish to direct any correspondence toward the FWC, the people who issued this decision are:
JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT: 03) 8656 4520
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI Ph (02) 9308 1932
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY (07) 3028 7812
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON (08) 8193 5515
COMMISSIONER LEE (03) 8656 4727
@dizzle: I work Saturdays with no penalty rates. If i was in the boat where i was asked to work that extra 4hrs (which I'm not), i'd be disappointed but i have no option.
So now you will have to work 38hrs instead of 32hrs? to earn as much as i do working 45hrs a week…thats my view.
At 50% extra for a Sunday, is there still anywhere else in the world that would pay better for non skilled labour in these industries? Double pay was great while it lasted. I loved it when I was at uni, was a joke how much I got paid to work a Sunday shift for how easy my retail job was. Go to your local restaurant or small retailer and ask them how many actually receive double pay. Your big stores mainly yes, smaller ones, much less likely.
If you aren't willing to pay 50% more for your food, coffee, transport, hotel on sundays…then stop whinging about but being paid 50% more.
It's unsustainable and part of life. You make a decision to work in an industry that works Sundays.
And before you moan…I work weekends and get paid the same as what I would for work on a weekday. The only exceptions are Christmas and New Years.So you are unaffected by this pay cut, yet think it is fine for others?
You seem to think the costs of Sunday penalty rates don't get absorbed and reflected somewhere. You just magically get more money for doing the same amount of work.
Pricing won't change though once this is in effect.
Penalty rates are already being paid to workers.
Cutting them does result in money transferring, to the business owners and investors.
I think this is unjust in that it provides a substantial pay cut to people who work Sundays, and I find there is no evidence to support the theory that increased employment will result.
As an example, Coles and Woolies, all the fast food restaurants and the vast majority of retail and hospitality franchise businesses already open on Sunday. Why would they employ more staff on that day just because wages dropped?
Surely it is most likely they will happily pass this reduction in the wage bill through to their shareholders?
I've never got them to begin with. I accept that I work for the same amount be it a week day or weekend.
Why? Because my business can't afford to pay me twice as much and our clients wouldn't pay it just because it's a weekend.What is done is right. If businesses find they don't have people working because they want to be paid more then they'll offer more. It'll self correct if there is a huge uproar.
Again…are you happy to pay more just because you want a coffee on a weekend instead of a week day? Or a meal..or the movies, petrol, parking, etc etc. Probably not. And I wouldn't either.
And if no-one wants to pay more on weekends, then weekends become what they were. No-one works.
But because everyone is greedy and wants to earn more and work more and "get ahead", we have a 24/7 industry.How long do you wait if you need a plumber on a weekend until you find one who charges the same as weekdays?
I don't know why your business is unable to charge a premium to compensate you for working on the weekend. Maybe you could say you aren't going to work until you are paid more?
Or maybe it won't self correct because the boss and the worker aren't equal in power? If the worker says no, the boss is understaffed for a shift, if the boss says no, then the worker can't pay their rent or food bills. Who do you think I'd more motivated to accede?
As it happens I am fine with paying a premium to get served if it is at an inconvenient time, including weekends.
I don't think everyone being greedy and trying to operate a 24/7 economy is a healthy society.
I have to live in that society, as do my kids and one day maybe my grandkids. So I think it would be better if we continued to have a meaningful difference between weekdays and weekends, including paying a premium for people who have to work weekends.
I would be willing to pay 50% more for food on Sundays if the cost of the vegetables, meat, water, electricity, council rates, taxes and other consumables at the restaurant also went up by 50% on Sunday. Labour is just one component of pricing so it's totally incorrect to say food should cost 50% more because labour is 50% more expensive.
Fair point. So you'd be happy to pay a % of what it would cost for the restaurant to pay more to its staff?
Labour is a HUGE component of why prices in Australia cost so much. Vicious circle. Labour costs more so products cost more so people have to get paid more to pay for their products. It's why it's cheaper to buy something new than pay someone to fix something….like we used to do.
Agree though…prices wouldn't be 50% more…but they would go up. Chookas to you for being comfortable paying more just because it's the 7th day in a week.
Its a seductive idea, but it isn't a fair point.
All the costs borne by a business fall into two areas, capital costs, that are largely fixed in relation to the income generated, and operational costs, that vary with the amount of income generated.
Businesses call these CAPEX and OPEX.
As a rule, businesses work hard to reduce OPEX, because it is a cost that grows alongside profit growth, and will spend CAPEX, a cost that largely doesn't grow with more profit, if they can.
The classic example is a business that will pay $100k for a robot that replaces a $50k per year human worker, as long as the robot keeps working longer than 2 years.I would be willing to pay 50% more for food on Sundays if the cost of the vegetables, meat, water, electricity, council rates, taxes and other consumables at the restaurant also went up by 50% on Sunday
A lot of these costs are capital costs, and the biggest of them certainly are.
If you consider the cost of vegetables, as the first example, the cost of veges is almost 100% land+equipment cost and labour cost. Fertilizer, water etc. is all a pittance (happy for a farmer to correct me if their farm is different) compared to those costs. One, farm+equipment is a CAPEX cost, and it doesn't vary by day of the week. The other, labour, does.
But most farmers can schedule their labour force to avoid penalty rates, except if there is something like a hail storm forecast for a Monday. So farmers sensitivity to labour penalty rates is quite small (I haven't actually looked up a farm worker award to know if they get penalties, but I assume they get something).
So paying producers an extra 50% on Sundays would be a straight windfall to the farm owner. It wouldn't align with any increased costs and it isn't justified.So this kind of comment just clouds the issue, which is people who were doing their normal jobs just got a pay cut to work for free for two hours each week if one of their shift days was Sunday.
The theory goes that by reducing penalty rates means that more people can be employed,
so what about if politicians reduce their rates so that more of them can be employed ?Aren't there already enough of them? lol
Nah, if we cut the Australia post CEO pay package from 5.6 million to just 1.86 million, we can afford three more AustPost CEO's.
Wouldn't mind a few extra posties to get my parcels to the door.
And theory has been said to be incorrect, businesses will not employ more staff on Sunday.
LOL brutal straight
Perhaps we should make sure that people are paid the basic minimum wage by business's first. The student industry, 457 sponsorships are front for exploitation by the business's.
The hospitality industry is rife with 'colleges' running courses where students are used as free labour for businesses under the guise that this is work experience and part of the course. The free labour can extend to several weeks of work.
You can add a lot of white collar jobs as well, big culprit is law firms as a prime example.
Very true. I'm currently seeking paid work and keep getting offered strange courses and all the unpaid work experiences, with colleges and start-ups (the later confuses me very much).
So here's the thing… I think penalty rates in certain industries are basically a part of the economy, they've been around for so long. People have planned their employment and lives around them, and it really sucks for them to lose them. The people losing out here aren't rich, either. That really sucks.
But on the other hand, my wife works in sport. You know what the penalty rates are in the sport award? Zero. Zero for nights, zero for Saturdays, zero for Sundays. Because we acknowledge that sport happens on weekends. It's part of the job and she accepted that going in. She misses out on family time too, and doesn't get any extra compensation for it. Why should retail and hospitality be any different in that respect?
Who is your wife's employer?
Does the employee contract say no penalty rates because they pay more than award etc?Her employer is a sporting organization in NSW. It's not "no penalty rates because they pay more than the award" - the Sporting Organisations Award 2010 simply does not have penalty rates. Period. Everything except overtime is paid at straight time, regardless of the time of day or day of the week. Have a read if you don't believe me:
Maybe she should get a real job then.
yep, it stinks she doesn't get compensated for having to work not normal days. Looks like it was changed in 2014, I guess a weak union but it does say individuals can vary their agreement with the employer for things like penalty rates - but we know that's not likely to happen.
I notice though that she gets extra annual leave when you work weekends, hospitality staff dont get that. and also for all time worked on a public holiday its at the rate of double time and a half. So she does get some extras. and normal hours for her are 6am-6pm, so any nights etc are not on ordinary time.Instead of why should retail be different to your wife, its your wifes job that is different to almost all others - her award should change.
So do you want higher wages for your wife? Or are you just as happy to bring everyone down to the same level as her? Because that's the problem. Rather than Australian workers trying to improve each other's lot in life, they're too busy and jealous to do anything other than try to tear their fellow workers down.
This isn't the Australia i grew up in. :(
And this is exactly why EBAs work so well at slashing conditions. Offer a below inflation wage rise and you can get workers to remove any condition that doesn't directly apply to 50%+ of them.
Well said mjp.
Another is music. That they don't get paid enough to begin with is beside the point but not only do most work weekends but they work stupid hours. The only time they can charge more is christmas and new years.
I'd imagine there are a few other industries that are similar.
Meh such an entitled and spoiled society. People should be happy to have a job.
doesn't go far enough casual workers shouldn't get any penalty rates for weekends
It could probably help in some situations, but overall this is just about giving bosses extra profit. I know that running a small business is hard, but there are better ways to support small businesses that don't rely on making workers worse off.
I've got friends in health and public service. We're watching closely…surely we're next.
No one should have their penalty rates reduced.
Yep same here. I am anxious that we are next on the chopping block and waiting for the doctors, nurses, allied health for their sunday pay cut.
Well I think I will stop working weekends when Sunday penalty rates take effect. Im in pharmacy and even if you have a cert 3 businesses legally only have to pay you a cert 2 pharmacy assistant wage. Seems most of us agree that mon-fri is looking much more prefable again..most already have no interest in working weekends. Just not worth the sacrifice. Hoping for July next year for the change though lol. I wonder if weekday rates will increase as was initially said when they first started talking about this? Im doubtful.
Now we need Ozbargain more than ever.
Dont blame me i voted labor.
but shorten made the changes that gave fair work commission this power
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems…and has supported it in the past
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3863639/labor-wont-fight-a…And the unions aren't on the worker's side anymore.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/hamburgle…
Workers haven't had genuine representation for a very very long time. Which is why working conditions and pay is in decline.
A friend works at Coles petrol stations and gets around $60 per hour on a weekend night shift that runs into a Monday public holiday. There is no way, I thought, that selling a few chocolate bars at 3am is profitable with such high wages.
Coles stations in my area are now shutting down around 10pm and reopening at 5am.
Very specific example of a weekend night shift rolling in to a public holiday.
We Australians often like to think the grass is much greener on the other side, and that we're a bit of an economic backwater compared to places like Germany. And Adelaide (where I live) is positively stuck in a retro time slip.
So imagine my surprise when I recently visited Germany and Austria, and found almost all stores (department, supermarket, small specialty) are closed on Sundays. The leading economy of Europe, and the fourth largest in the world after Japan, actually has a day off per week. They have worked out that Sundays are indeed a bit of a special day. Hopefully we won't forget too.
Thanks for this little anecdote, it gives me a small sense of hope for the future :)
I overheard a conversation at my mothers when a friend of hers called….the words "when we were young we didn't do anything on weekends. We did what we wanted."
Now a days, everyone is busy working. Make more. Get ahead. Jobs and growth.
Sunday's should be a day off. Where did we go so wrong?
So we'd rather all shops closed, no one gets employed and for the people who are now not working on Sundays, there's no where to eat out/drink, go shopping or to get any other services? I don't know about you but I'd prefer if I have my Sunday's off that I actually have things to do rather than sit at home watching TV.
It's unethical that the big retailers that pushed for extended trading hours years ago have EPA's in place UNION APPROVED to do away with double time on Sundays. Smaller retailers that do not have a specific EPA have continued to pay full penalty rates on Sundays, or do a dodgy (aka 7/11 type scams).
Should make it a level playing field and ensure ALL hospitality and retail employees get the SAME MINIMUM shift loadings and/or $ per hour. Shareholders of the big retailers might not be happy - but its just reversing an unfair advantage they have had for years due to a pathetic union that agreed to this. Lots of employees at these retailers will benefit and so will the smaller players in the industry.
Regarding weekend surcharges - if its not profitable to open on a given day, the business should not open. Don't slug customers more because you want to trade when others are closed. Probably why other services are hard to find on open and offering full services on Sundays - Mechanics, Dentists, Medical Specialists, RMS, Banks, etc.
EBA. Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. Not EPA. You lose all credibility when you prove you literally don't know what you're talking about by getting the acronym wrong.
By using bluster on a forum all you have made me do is re-read the original comment. It may not be true, and I don't care, but it's more convincing than calling a speeling mistake proof that Elvis kill JFK and kidnapped Harold Holt.
I don't have a problem with you re-reading the original comment. I disagree with parts of it. And I think the implication of "making it a level playing field" would likely be that everyone would be given a lower wage not a higher one. But that doesn't mean I want to sensor it. It is up to you to assess the validity of the comment and how informed the person making it is.
It's not a spelling mistake or a typo. He used EPA twice. The rest of his English is good. That implies he has no idea what it stands for. Would you take the advice of a mechanic who told you there was a problem with your car's EPI instead of EFI? Asking someone to know what they're on about is not "bluster on a forum". Facts matter.
@syousef: Correct, Incorrect character typed twice. My bad. I still stand by the rest of my comments. 20+ years in retail and hospitality and a member of various unions. Out of these industries now.
I have quoted opinions mostly. So no need to agree with me.
For the record, I do not see why a retail cashier, bank cashier or a cashier in a buffet would all get a different loading on a Sunday, irrespective of their base wage. Double time (or more) is reasonable. Just pay the same loading as a FWA cleric would get at the same time of day - seems fair to me.
May I ask any retail or hospitality union employees that might be reading this forum - curious to know for those that work in the office (not in the stores), what loadings WOULD you get on a Sunday if your employer asked you to regularly work? If its more than what those in the industry you work to represent gets, how long has this been the case?
@syousef:
I think Mx2 showed they did know what they were talking about by using the acronym in context. Do you think you have no credibility just because you used sensor instead of censor?@Miss B:
I guess you are teasing, but clearly both earlier comments suffered from a typo or autocorrect.
I am interested in the substance of the comments, however, because they attack the mainstream media narrative around this decision, and are some of the few that look beyond the immediate effects on retail/hospitality and give any consideration to whether there is a societal benefit to having weekends (as opposed to individual non-coordinated rest periods).
For the record, I find the SDA EBAs disgraceful, because they precipitated this raid on non-weekday hours.
Judging from some of the comments here, the societal benefits of co-ordinated rest periods (the ones at the top of my mind are amateur sport, outdoor clubs, volunteer organisations that require groups, support groups etc.) aren't being considered.I personally would like to ask the FWC how they will compensate the following organisations if they have reduced volunteers as a result of increased retail hours:
Boy Scouts
Girl Guides
Junior Cricket
Junior Rugby League
Junior AFL
Little Athletics
Surf Life Saving Nippers
Netball Australia
Basketball
Other sports.What is the cost of employing staff to take over volunteer roles that will decline due to staff being pressured to take weekend shifts now penalties no longer favour other staff.
My assumption is this sort of societal impact was ignored, or at least disregarded as too hard to quantify.Actually yes. I bolloxed up my point by using sensor instead of censor weakening my point greatly. But it doesn't have quite the same implication because censorship isn't the topic.
You seem to be missing the whole picture because you are focusing on the brush strokes.
Mx2 was talking about reduction to Sunday penalty rates. You changed the topic to spelling. I rudely asked you to get back on topic. Then you got trolled by someone thinking I was just calling you out because you wrote something mean. You responded to the trolling comment and went back to talking about spelling.
You are free to start a new thread on how people who make one spelling mistake twice in the same post can not possibly know anything about the topic they are talking about. You can keep talking about spelling mistakes here. But please understand, just like you, a large portion of people hold complete contempt towards people who change the topic from a concept into personal attacks and will ignore anything they say there after.
Seeing as you really want to talk about spelling when the topic is clearly the reduction of Sunday penalty rates, I will oblige.
I completely disagree with you, syousef. I believe that only people who misspell an acronym three times in the same paragraph have no credibility when talking about said acronym. Mx2, very clearly, misspelt an acronym only twice in one paragraph, hence making him an expert in said field.
I myself am a self appointed expert in philosophical logic, completing one subject at uni on the topic with honors. Never mind that my argument is full of logical errors which you won't see or understand as you are not a HD student of one philosophical logic 13 week subject.
I mean saying someone isn't proof reading their writing because they are making spelling mistakes doesn't even make logical sense, let alone concluding that they no nothing of a topic. Oh no. You ate food today and people died of hunger. It must be your fault.
Read this, it will make you seem smarter:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
I have re-written this post four times to remove as much nastiness as I can. I don't mean to offend you. You seem like a smart, well spoken individual who has lots to add to the topic of the reduction of penalty rates on Sundays.
If the brush strokes are crap, so will the picture be.
If you don't know the basics - that an EBA is an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, how can you hope to understand the nuances?
And I know all about logical fallacies. Would you like me to list all the ones you made in that post?
I appreciate your candor. I'm not trying to insult you either. We just fundamentally disagree.
A spelling mistake is a spelling mistake. It proves nothing.
Your argument is that a spelling mistake is proof of complete incompetence. But a spelling mistake could be due to a lack of proofing, ignorance about one fact or even contempt.
You are also missing a fundamental of mature debate. Respond to what your opponent meant, not necessarily said. We do this out of self respect and dignity for our opponent.
My responses were not mature. The first one was designed to get you to back up your argument with some facts. The second one was designed to show you your line of reasoning made no sense by using the same logical errors you were using. You even agreed our arguments made no sense.
And I know all about logical fallacies. Would you like me to list all the ones you made in that post?
If you don't know the basics - that an EBA is an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, how can you hope to understand the nuances?
OP might be talking from experience. OP might work in a field with a EBA and was forced to sign one without understanding the rights they were giving up. OP might not of talked about EBA's for 5 years and forgot the actual acronym. We don't know. You called the OP a moron with out asking why they made the error.
It honestly doesn't matter. You showed a complete lack of self respect by directly attacking the OP instead of what they said. It's a good way to get people to respond to your comments. But you are clearly a very smart person and don't need to demean yourself like this for attention.
If the brush strokes are crap, so will the picture be.
What a load of crap. The Starry Night looks like a child painted it. But it is a great concept. Some people don't get it. They don't have to. But they are missing the concept. Arguing over a spelling mistake instead of the concept is missing the concept.
TL;DR Stop arguing against what you think the intent of the argument is and actually argue what was posted. And stop lecturing people about how to conduct a debate and logical fallacies until you learn some practical application.
Ok I tried. Here we go then.
A spelling mistake is a spelling mistake. It proves nothing
Really? You want to talk to me about logical fallacies and your argument is that a "spelling mistake" which is a typo of the acronym of the topic doesn't show ignorance.
Your logical fallacy: Non-sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
You are also missing a fundamental of mature debate. Respond to what your opponent meant, not necessarily said. We do this out of self respect and dignity for our opponent.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. You are the last person that should be lecturing anyone on how to conduct a debate. For starters.
- If a person can't express themself clearly, how the hell are you suppose to work out what they meant? You can only guess.
- It's easy to twist an argument against an opponent if you put words in their mouth and then debate against that. That's called a straw man by the way.
Your argument is that a spelling mistake is proof of complete incompetence.
If you don't know the acronym for the topic, you aren't competent to opine on it. It's okay. Ignorance can be fixed. Which is what I was saying the poster should do.
But a spelling mistake could be due to a lack of proofing, ignorance about one fact or even contempt.
- What are the odds that a lack of proofing caused the "spelling mistake" to be repeated 3 times?
- Ignorance about the fact proves my point.
- There was no evidence whatsoever that this was intentional contempt.
It honestly doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter that the author of a statement displays ignorance on the topic? How exactly do you expect a well reasoned valid argument to come from a place of ignorance.
Yes it matters. It matters very much. This mess we are in and the decline in many areas you are seeing is a direct result of people failing to understand that correctness and logical reasoning matter.
You showed a complete lack of self respect by directly attacking the OP instead of what they said.
I told the OP to check himself and have an understanding before repeatedly making a mistake that made him come across as completely ignorant on the topic. And now I'm doing the same for you. You're welcome.
OP might be talking from experience. OP might work in a field with a EBA and was forced to sign one without understanding the rights they were giving up.
I could completely understand that is possible since if it did OP didn't even bother to learn what the acronym EBA stood for.
By the way I've had changes made that I didn't want to my working conditions due to an EBA. Which is why I get annoyed when I see people so ignorant of them. Any working condition not enjoyed by 51% of a group working for an employer can easily be stripped away. Given the specialised nature and conditions of a lot of jobs within a company where a large number of people may be subject to a handful of EBAs it is trivial to strip worker's rights and conditions to the bone within a few cycles.
We don't know. You called the OP a moron with out asking why they made the error.
Stop reading between the lines goddamn it! You're bad at it!!! You certainly didn't take your own advice and argue against what I meant because you were too busy putting words in my mouth.
"You lose all credibility when you prove you literally don't know what you're talking about by getting the acronym wrong."
That means "Go and goddamn learn what you are talking about before posting". It doesn't mean he's a moron.
What a load of crap. The Starry Night looks like a child painted it.
Um nope. It doesn't. You picked one of the worst examples possible, and now you're the one coming across as ignorant. The Starry Night looks like it was painted by a child to you because you have no idea about the detail of the painting or why it's considered such a classic. Educate yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMerSm2ToFY
You know what I have a headache and your pseudo-intellectual condescending crap is making it worse. I'm done for tonight. I'll deal with your ignorance in my own good time.
OT. Off Topic. Don't go OT. You lose all credibility when you prove you literally don't know how to have a conversation by ignoring a sentence and focusing on spelling.
EBA. Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. Not EPA. You lose all credibility when you prove you literally don't know what you're talking about by getting the acronym wrong.
I told the OP to check himself and have an understanding before repeatedly making a mistake that made him come across as completely ignorant on the topic. And now I'm doing the same for you. You're welcome.
You called him a moron. What do you think completely ignorant means?
…him come across as completely ignorant
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=synonym+ignorant
synonyms:
uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, unscholarly, unqualified, benighted, backward; inexperienced, unworldly, unsophisticated;
unintelligent, stupid, simple, empty-headed, mindless;
informalpig-ignorant, thick, airheaded, (as) thick as two short planks, dense, dumb, dim, dopey, wet behind the ears, slow on the uptake, dead from the neck up, a brick short of a load, two sandwiches short of a picnic;
informaldozy, divvy, daft, not the full shilling;
informalglaikit;
informalchowderheaded, dumb-ass;
informaldotish;
informaldof;
rarehebete
"an ignorant country girl"Well I will be…
Fine, you didn't call OP a moron, you said OP's not the full shilling!
You lose all credibility
Stop reading between the lines goddamn it! You're bad at it!!!I am just reading the words you are writing. Just because you seem to read phonetically doesn't mean other people can't read sentences :p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMerSm2ToFY
That video said Van Gogh painted something observable to anyone, turbulence, then related it back to the complex maths behind turbulence which has nothing to do with his work. It doesn't challenge my assertion that The Starry Night's 'brush strokes are crap'. The use of those 'crap' brush strokes is excellent. The piece was ground braking. I didn't say otherwise. It fit's my metaphor perfectly. That said…
Your expert is an educator. She made a nice digital educational framework, which is her specialty if you look her up. She doesn't seem to have the back ground to present these ideas cogently. This video seems like filler to demonstrate her research. Check for yourself:
The Starry Night
http://lh6.ggpht.com/HlgucZ0ylJAfZgusynnUwxNIgIp5htNhShF559x…Vortex:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canary_A2002186_1155_250m…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vortex-street-1.jpgLaminar to turbulent flow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laminar-turbulent_transit…And the Maths behind turbulence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence#Kolmogorov.27s_theo…They look nothing alike. I am sure you could zoom in on many other 240 year old painting and see similar patterns in the brush strokes. I can assure you the results of the maths behind turbulence will produce results similar to the photos, not The Starry Night. If you want to prove me wrong please feel free to do the graphs in matlab. If there was any, and I mean any, truth to ideas the educator was presenting, then the educator would have provided sources instead of links to fractals.
Look at me, I'm going off topic too, How annoying :p
What are the odds that a lack of proofing caused the "spelling mistake" to be repeated 3 times?
10% - 50% according to "Smith 'Reliability and Manageability and Risk' appendix 6". It's not an exact parallel. Even the rate of errors in papers on typing put Mx2's error rate below that of a skilled or professional typist.
You are the one that took it off topic, not me. Giving me a damn lecture on manners and debate ettiquette, then coming up with this nonsense about being off topic. You know as much about those topics as about art.
Ignorance can be fixed. Being a moron can't. Half the synonyms you listed, strictly speaking aren't synonyms. And now you're arguing with art and math experts. Well above your pay grade I'm afraid. You're choosing not to learn. That isn't simple fixable ignorance.
Give up.
| you're arguing with art and math experts
Who? Look at your expert's resume. They have a very respectful education background. Their maths background is not enough to tutor high school maths thought NSW's DET.
| If the brush strokes are crap, so will the picture be.
You still haven't offered any proof justifying your claim. Your expert talks about turbulence then links fractals as further research. They ignored critiquing how good or bad Van Gogh's brush strokes are other than what they think they represent (which is a concept, not the physical strokes).
| Ignorance can be fixed. Being a moron can't. Half the synonyms you listed, strictly speaking aren't synonyms
It is a copy and pasted straight from google. Go complain to Larry Page. My point was saying 'You lose all credibility' and 'you literally don't know what you're talking' is incredibly rude, especially when you don't offer any proof to back up your claims.
| Well above your pay grade I'm afraid.
Research Associate / Project Coordinator pays sweet nothing. Their institute pays $70,000 – $80,000 USD, which is good for that role, but it's not exactly 'above my pay grade'. Thank you for taking an interest in me!
| Give up.
???
Where did you get your degree in art and math from? Giving up is an antithesis to the whole concept of education.
If you want me to stop replying, be polite and back up your claims with proof. We are not in person. The bold claims you continue to make are meaningless in writing without proof.
Sorry for the delay replying to you. I have been busy. I replied as soon as I saw your comment.
There's an understatement. You come back with that 2 weeks later? You think you're busy? I have better things to do than dredge up a poor attempt at debate from 2 weeks ago with someone who can't tell "Starry Night" from a finger painting and doesn't know how to let it go.
Not really. It's an easy mistake, you're just nit-picking.
If you know what Enterprise Bargaining Agreement stands for it should be easy to avoid typing shorthand for Enterprise Pargaining Agreement instead. If you don't, you probably know the acronym you probably don't know the topic well. In which case you should educate yourself before sharing a detailed opinion. it's not hard.
If you went into a lecture on maintaining your car and the guy giving the talk kept calling the Electronic Fuel Injection EGI instead of EFI, what would you think of his expertise?
And yes it's an easy mistake which is why I said FIX IT!
I used to be really jealous of people that received penalty rates. When I was an apprentice I earned less in a 38 hour week than people the same age as me working on a weekend as a casual.
See you should have been fighting to get higher wages, not fighting to bring down others. We're in a race to the bottom here.
And how would I achieve that? Go to the local representatives? Nah they can't do crap for a minority. Go to the SDA? Hahahaha they'd do a backroom deal.
Yep.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/hamburgle…Run for office and try not to become corrupt? Not everyone wants to be a politician.
It's hard. But it's even harder if people try to bring each other down instead of raise themselves up.
@syousef: Fortunately in my case the pay got better after the first year. Unfortunately I can't say the same for my equivalents who were in government (labor) departments.
I don't buy the argument that it makes running a business more expensive. As an example there are a couple of cafes on the coast near where I live and they are jam-packed on a weekend. The way I see it is that the business is making the bulk of their revenue on the weekends so if they have to pay their staff more, so what? The staff are earning it.
You could walk into these places midweek and they'd basically be empty so if anything, it's costing them more to open mid week with very few customers while paying staff the base, non-penalty, rate.
maybe they'd employ more staff on a weekend without the penalty rate, I don't know for sure but I doubt it.
This is only one example I'm familiar with, maybe it's different for other industries (retail etc..) but from what I can see, most of these business do the bulk of their trade on the weekends, when the majority of customers are free to provide them with their business.The point in this discussion is why should anyone get paid more working on a Saturday than a Sunday ? When I was younger,shops weren't open on Sunday's,AFL was only played on Saturdays,there was no horse racing on Sunday's, and way more people went to church. A completely different world now.
I have to say I'm on board with the reduction / removal of penalty rates.
They're an archaic idea and they do not fit in with modern society and the expanded economy. Australia severely lags behind in opening hours, late night shopping / dining, and just in general getting people out of the house and being sociable.Saturday and Sunday should at the least be made equivalent pay rates.
It's not a matter of if penalty rates are eliminated, but when. So people better get used to the idea.
Have fun when your wages are cut too. This is just the start. Better get use to the idea.
Everyone prattles on about the "modern society" - so when you have a birthday party you will have it on a Tuesday at 11am because that's how "modern society" is now? Having a backyard BBQ with your family? Thursday 9am because we live in a modern society? No, these things all happen on the weekends because some things will never change. Neither should penalty rates.
Why should some of the lowest paid workers be made to work weekends (because that's how it is - if you work in a big retailer you are given shifts to work, you can't pick and choose to work or not work weekends), for no extra pay when they are missing out on the social aspect of the weekend?
F@ck off.
Let see
Investors buying up multiple properties and jacking the price up to silly amounts. Government does nothing.
Average consumers spending less due to huge mortgage created by investors jacking up house prices.
Retail business decrease sales.
Government lowers Sunday rate claiming it will add more jobs, most likely it adds more in the pocket of businesses and they will not pass it on.
Fix the god damn bloody house prices first silly government, then business would not even complain about paying low wage earners extra on Sunday.The only winner is really property investors.
Poor get poorer the rich get richer."Fix the god damn bloody house prices first silly government"
Won't happen and can't happen. There are far too many Australians invested in real estate, and they vote.
"The only winner is really property investors."
That's generally the way it works. Silly-> making something 8 hours a day. Smart-> owning the building where something is made.
Politicians may talk about a housing affordabliliy crisis, but it is just wind. Everything they do is designed to drive send housing prices through the roof so that rich people become even more affluent at the expense of the poor. The most egregious example is immigration policy. If we stopped immigration housing prices would stabilize, and only increase at the same rate as inflation.
Why do businesses even need to be open on Sundays?
Can't we have one bloody day per week where people are FORCED to spend time with family because everything is closed?
As a matter of fact, I even think the half day Saturdays were good as well.Instead of everybody chasing the almighty dollar, legislate that all retail closes on a Sunday and then there's no issue.
Is that Maccas or cup of coffee that bloody important? Can we all not go one bloody day without the shops being open?
I feel sorry for the people that have to work it, I really do.
I'm not religious, but I like the idea of one day of week for Rest.
A day where family time is made possible because no one in the family has to work it (or be tempted to work it to get the penalty).The world would survive perfectly fine.
It's a slippery slope to claim Sunday work is normal time. Not long ago it wasn't.
In a few years who's to say that extended trading to 9pm every night isn't 'normal' too?
Where's the line?The USA has some retail open 24/7. Why? What's so damn important that you need to buy it at 4am?
I don't know why you feel that other people should be forced to live the way you envision. Stay in your own lane.
Can't we have one bloody day per week where people are FORCED to spend time with family because everything is closed?
Going out for lunch/dinner with grandma, shopping for clothes with the daughter, newly wed couple going funiture shopping are all "spending time with family".
Are you completely unprepared to cover the very modest cost in extra labour it works out to indulge your convenience to do this on a Sunday as opposed to the even smaller cost on a Saturday or the nil cost on a weekday?
A meal typically attracts a dollar or two surcharge, the other stuff, maybe a handful of dollars.This change equates to somebody earning $50k a year working 2 hours free on a Sunday. Your 50c or dollar saved makes them work extra by an hour or two in order to bring home the same pay. Are you sure that sounds fair?
Would you work two hours free on a Sunday? Who are you donating that saving to? Let me know. is it Coles and Woolies who will see the greatest benefit from this change? Or maybe one of the foreign owners of retailers that can take the profit more directly off shore?
Tell me again how this is an advantage to our community?
Are you completely unprepared to cover the very modest cost
Yes because that was not my point, re read what I quoted and what section I replied to.
Don't put things in my mouth, twist my words or accuse me of saying things I didn't say. That's strawman.
Go rant to someone else.
If Saturday, sunday and public holidays are normal working days why aren't federal or state govt. offices open on weekends.
I seriously doubt any prices will be going down.
People who think this is okay should think about those workers with children who really struggle to make ends meet.
I spent some time on google searching for "has lowering wages ever increased employment" and could not find evidence that it has.
I'm not saying it has not, I just could not find any evidence that it has, if anyone can find proof that it has please post it.Below are extracts from an article from the business insider from the the USA.
http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-effect-on-jobs-2…
A report that analyzed every minimum-wage hike since 1938 should put a bunch of nonsense ideas to rest.
We have been raising the minimum wage for 78 years, and as a new study clearly reveals, 78 years of minimum-wage hikes have produced zero evidence of the "job-killing" consequences these headline writers want us to fear.In a first-of-its-kind report, researchers at the National Employment Law Project pore over employment data from every federal increase since the minimum wage was first established, making "simple before-and-after comparisons of job-growth trends 12 months after each minimum-wage increase."
What did the researchers find? The paper's title says it all: "Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data Find No Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels."
The results were clear. Of the nearly two dozen federal minimum-wage hikes since 1938, total year-over-year employment actually increased 68% of the time.
In those industries most affected by the minimum wage, employment increases were even more common: 73% of the time in the retail sector, 82% in low-wage leisure and hospitality.
"These basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels," the authors write.
In fact, if anything, the data suggest that increases in the federal minimum appeared to encourage job growth and hiring.
Perhaps even more striking, of the only eight times that total or industry-specific employment declined after a minimum-wage increase, the US economy was already in recession (five times), technically just emerging from recession (twice), or about to head into recession (once).
Clearly, this handful of employment downturns would be better explained by the normal business cycle than by the minimum wage.
"As those results mirror the findings of decades of more sophisticated academic research," the authors conclude, "they provide simple confirmation that opponents' perennial predictions of job losses are rooted in ideology, not evidence."
But while there is no evidence that raising the minimum wage is the "risky" "gamble" that doomsayers describe, the devastating economic costs of keeping wages too low are very well documented.
After decades of stagnant wages, 73 million Americans — nearly one quarter of our population — now live in households eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit exclusively available to the working poor.
And according to a 2014 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, rising income inequality (and the reduced consumer demand that comes with it) knocked 6% to 9% off US economic growth over the previous two decades.
Wow. If the US economy were 9% bigger than it is today, it would have created about 11 million additional jobs. Imagine how great that would be for both American workers and businesses.
dinomartino1 , I am completely on your page. You are seeking value, not pure low price.
Value government sometimes doesn't get there in time when you are being robbed, so some victims die. And robbers double their efforts because when you cut policing services it is a lower risk deal to rob somebody, and if they cut it enough, why not just put a bullet in the head of the victim - no witnesses.
And we can have value retail pay too. Right now if you employ somebody and never pay a sick day for them and never pay a holiday day for them you can get them for $22 an hour-ish. Used to be their family time was as important as office workers and parliamentarians and other "better class" people. But now we know that they fall in to the less regulated 24/7 economy. These lesser people used to be new immigrants working their marginally english speaking guts out so their kids would be dentists. Because the only people still working at 11pm or Sundays were these battlers, and they charged a premium for their chocolate bars and cigarettes, and that hard work and premium pricing was rewarded.
The FWC apparently hates those hard workers. How dare they charge an extra 50c for providing a chocolate bar at 3pm on a Sunday. They have decided nobody should get anymore pay on a Sunday instead of a Saturday. They have chosen to assume family time on the weekend is valued at $0. They assumed an immigrant running his corner shop on a Sunday should have little cost advantage against Woolworths.
Its fair, as long as you only measure business interests.
I think it is an example of out of touch fat cats ignoring the majority. I think it is the kind of stuff that gets fruit loops like Donald Trump elected when the people in charge are so completely divorced from the general feeling.
Can anyone give a solid reason why Sunday rates should be higher than Saturday rates?
Would you work on Sunday for normal or Saturday rates?
It's an undesirable day to work because it kills your weekend, hard to go out on a Saturday and have a late night when you need to be up in the morning.
There was a time when we didn't have Sunday trading and penalty rates were an incentive to get people covering those shifts as a trade off for businesses wanting to be open on the day.If businesses want to capitalise on what can be highly profitable Sundays then why can't the workers as well?
You didn't answer my question. Why should Sunday rates be higher than Saturday. People go out friday night equal to saturday, so the morning after is equivalent. I know why sunday rates are higher (due to historical religious reasons) but can anyone justify higher sunday rates than saturday today?
Between your response and mine that's all of the reasons.
We didn't have Sunday trading for religious reasons.
Businesses worked out, particularly retail and hospitality that Sunday (10-4 generally) is a very lucrative time as so many people aren't working.You say people go out on a Friday equal to Saturday, that may be true but from my experience it's easier to do so on a Saturday with a family. Friday most people are at work and then off on the night, Saturdays enable you to do things for the entire day but the night is taken away to an extent if you work Sunday.
Back to the first line, it's really important because it does in part come down to supply and demand. The majority of people aren't willing to work on a Sunday, they need to be incentivised to do so.
Perfect example is my situation.
I currently work on Sunday, I get a good wage but in return miss out on a day spent with my daughter off school. If I were paid Saturdays wages then I wouldn't be interested and as it stands my employer is always searching for more capable staff willing to give up their Sunday and can't find enough.
I've yet to see one. Especially those who typically work the Sundays aren't the ones likely to attend a religious service.
So much language that makes it sounds like all penalty rates are gone. Lame. Definitely still have penalty rates for the weekends but some of the original rates are a joke.
I hope business owners follow suit with costs/prices but I find it unlikely. Even "honest" ones would want to be saving up extra dosh in this ongoing economic climate. Businesses opening Sunday for the first time would be only one I can think of.
Unless businesses are opening for the first time or putting on additional staff for Sunday there's no reason for removing the incentive of penalty rates.
I'm yet to be convinced that a 12.5% reduction in Sunday wage is nearly enough to have any impact, anyone that can only open on Sunday due to such a small difference is operating on such a razor thin margin that it's not going to end well.
Monday mornings ;-)
The reason is reasonably straight forward, but a result of a series of historical decisions.
From the 1940s to the early 1980s, rules forbade most businesses trading on the weekend except Saturday mornings.
Then businesses argued, much like today, that they were suffering by not being able to employ people extra hours, then it was Saturday afternoons and Sundays.
The government of the day recognised the counter argument that having time off was important too, and that it isn't very good if the kids have Saturday and Sunday off, one parent has Tuesday and Wednesday off and the other has Thursday and Friday (I can't believe I have to spell this out, but there are people in the thread arguing it doesn't matter!) so they compromised and said we will allow Saturday afternoon trade, and Sunday hospitality trade, but only if you generously compensate staff with penalty rates.
A few years later general retail trade was also allowed on Sundays, but it reflected the higher penalties from hospitality and as the least desirable day to work.The religious people had always campaigned strongly for the Sunday day off, so when the gov decided whether to make Saturday or Sunday the designated day of rest, they picked Sunday as the religious people wanted it and pretty much only a small number of Jews favoured Saturday instead. So a vocal religious lobby, admittedly comprising probably a majority of society then, were behind choosing Saturday over Sunday as the day with lower penalties.
Note that it was only in the late 1980s/early 1990s that general retail opened on Sundays and only a couple of years ago trade on public holidays like Boxing Day was further deregulated.
(All this is NSW)In WA they still largely restrict Sunday trade, but I think they are the last hold out.
Until the day they separate church and state, Sunday rates should be higher. When the church has no more say in politics, there will be no reason to compensate people for missing religious holidays.
If you think your pay is safe, you're a fool. They're just starting with the ones who can't raise their voice first. In 30 years Australia will be unrecognisable as the middle class shrinks. #racetobottom
In thirty years, all the lower rung jobs at the bottom of the skills ladder will be eliminated by robots.
When they raised the minimum wage to $15 dollars in the US last year, McDonalds responded with nationwide automation. This was eventually bound to happen.
We're going to have to think about the future as joblessness increases.
Agreed. But there it makes no sense accelerating the change, without first thinking about that future.
We are already a society in a very real decline in all aspects. If I live to be an old man, it's going to be a miserable world. I hope we recover.
"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."
All that argument says is that if your boss told you that you could earn the same pay next year but you have to work 4 hours more every week, you'd be OK with that. It's one thing to hire new employees at a new rate, it's another thing to cut the rates to employees that may have been there a while.
Alternatively using your "bonus" analogy. You work hard all year you may get a bonus. How hard would you work if you were told that next year if you do the same great work you only get 50% of that bonus?
Now I'm not on minimum wage, nor do I get penalty rates, but I work 3 out of four weekends (Not married but I miss out on friends and family gatherings) and I remember when I was getting penalty rates. It's amazing how people that don't work weekends say that nothing is being sacrificed and that most people that agree with this ruling are the people not earning minimum wage and are the people using these services on the weekends.