I thought the youth of today were much better educated...In the 50's and 60's, you could leave school here in Qld at the age of 14years, then it went to 15yrs and now I think it stands at 17yrs.. The youth of today may well spend time on their phones etc but then the oldies were busy in their day of rolling their smokes 3 times an hr. I think it was Plato who said I don't know what the youth of today are coming to. I only hope that no one ever raises the subject of older upper echelon managers and the amount of time they spend on the golf course, having dinner etc all in the pretence of doing business. To this even I have to plead guilty, even went to the races doing so called PR. Worked much harder under 30 than above it for less money. A lot of so called workers today would not last 5 mins in some of the hard manual labor jobs that was around 40 years ago. In the area around Bundaberg nearly all field workers are back packers from overseas. There is not an Australian to be seen. $16 hr is seen to be a good wage for asian workers. Some city blokes have tried field work but a lot give up after even a few hrs. It is hard work and you have to condition yourself to the sun, bending your back, aching bones and tiredness. Cleaning toilets, sweeping and washing pavements is a luxury job compared to field work. Regards Errol 43
I agree and disagree. Most people do just fine despite the rules and more people could do so if they are kicked off welfare and forced to try. But as you and the others have highlighted some people are simply not capable of having a proper go at a first business and are simply not worth $10/hr or even $5/hr until their work ethic or skills improve. Forcing them to be priced above their true worth makes employers hesitant to even give many people a go because they get burned.
As a great example of creating unemployment and misery by pricing people out of the market, it is worthwhile to look at the Northern Territory Cattle Industry Case of 1965-66. It is important to note that this case was about full blood Northern Territory aborigines on the cattle stations, and not about part blood aborigines. The Northern Australian Workers' Union applied to the Government to have aboriginal station workers paid the same as white workers. It is important to note that the Union primarily consisted of skilled white people and I will come back to this later. Quoting from the Commission's judgement about the case: In summary, there was a mass of evidence to show that the Northern Territory (full blood) aborigines' attitude to work, their lack of education and inability to read, write and count, and their cultural background affected their capacity to work in other callings in addition to those in the pastoral industry. Previous attempts to get employment even on a minimal scale for aborigines in industry generally or to get aborigines to take and maintain employment in industry had failed. At the time, the pastoral industry was the only industry which had been able to make a balanced relationship with aborigines who lived on the cattle stations but whose work was in general not as valuable as white workers. The Commission disregarded these factors and ruled that the principle of equal minimum pay should be enforced irrespective of the consequences (which they acknowledged would be borne by the Government). The outcome was to cause the aboriginal cattlemen to become unemployed in large numbers and to have to go on to 'welfare' in missions and settlements. In research undertaken by Gerard Henderson showed that "almost from the date of the Commission's decision there was a dramatic decline in Aboriginal employment on cattle stations in the Northern Territory and Western Australia---with devastating social consequences for the former employees and their dependants". (pages 108-109) Many aborigines, having been disemployed, moved into government settlements. Skilled aboriginal workers often wished to stay with those in their tribal group who became unemployed as a result of the decision. They decided to leave the cattle properties with the disemployed members of the tribe and go to settlements. This was predicted in evidence. In 1970 the Gorton government appointed a committee under Professor C. A. Gibb to enquire into the situation of aborigines on pastoral properties in the Northern Territory. It included Dr H. C. Coombs. The Committee said: "In the course of our inspection and discussion it became clear that the adoption of the Award has adversely affected the employment of Aborigines". (Henderson, page 109) The Union expected all of this. Indeed they deliberately initiated the case in order to benefit their members at the expense of the aboriginal stockmen. The nature of the Commission's method meant that the Union did not have to supply any evidence to contradict the pastoralists evidence. They merely had to say "equal pay for all irrespective of circumstances". Great way to victimise the poor and the uneducated and erect protectionist barriers for a selected group. W.r.t. the Commission's founding: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Edit: Primary source: Sir John Kerr speech to the HR Nicholls Society.
I understood that the capitalist system required unemployment at 3-5% to keep a lid on wages and create a competitive jobs market and hence to keep production constant. The people thrown on the scrapheap (the ones glued to a bong and daytime TV), are the inevitable result of that system. Full employment may be possible but the current system makes it undesirable. I see 'minimum' wages as a way to ensure that full employment doesn't occur. BTW Fruit picking is a shocker imho. Did it for a month and hated every minute. It was the pits!!
Thats what trial periods are for or hire them as temorary /casual . You are not automatically stuck with an employee from day 1 . Tell me have you ever run your own business?
nope the scar from extra head removal surgery is almost gone if they see the scar they might lynch me :lol:
Capitalism doesn't require unemployment and people aren't thrown onto the scrapheap (labour is the most scarce of all factors of production in a human economy whose purpose is to serve human needs and wants). Capitalism does involve a continuous process of creative destruction and consequent development. This process unemploys people as well as capital and natural resources from particular businesses and industries and the price signals create new opportunities in the new businesses and industries. But moving between businesses or industries is not instantaneous (nor is it uniform) and consequently there is a continuous churning of people actively engaged in the economy. The alternative is to not have businesses close down and to not have people reskill and to continue to make buggy whips for the rest of their lives (which will be thrown on the scrapheap as people don't actually want them). It's like a rental housing market. In theory you could have full use, but in practice churn means there's always at least some level of vacancy. At least you stuck with it for a month. Like the door to door salesmen, many people struggle to get past a week. Every time I thought picking one type of crop was the worst, I'd try another and it'd suck even more. It's why I switched to cleaning offices and toilets when I got the chance. Good money and indoor work.
So the short answer is NO ....tnx When you actually start a full time business im sure you will be better qualified to address the problems with starting , maintaining & hiring /firing employees in that business. It really isnt as difficult as you think . The difficult part is turning a fair profit to make it all worthwhile.
Short answer is yes but only a few times (and not for the entire business) and it too often it has ended up in killing my profit and consequently my income so I have become very reluctant to do it. I bow to your far greater experience* about the apparent ease of hiring/firing and turning a profit** and will therefore will stop promoting labour market reform before welfare cuts. The little bastards can suck it up and get into work. * I mean this honestly and am not taking the piss. ** I must admit however, that I am continually amazed at your acknowledgement of costs and relative worth of employees and yet seem to say that there aren't many unnecessary costs of employing people in Australia that affect profitability to the point that you don't hire as many people.
On the ABC this morning they reported that 300 people in Victoria have been on the dole for 20 years or more (!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - WTF thread?) How on earth does that happen given the range of 'crackdowns' they've had over the last 20 years.
The flip-side to that is that the workforce has become more and more casualised. In principle that's good for employers since they get more flexibility in managing wage costs and casual workers get paid more to compensate for the potential fluctuations in hours and money they take home. In practice, a lot of employers make full use of the "flexibility" to the point where they permanently roster off casual staff until they leave "of their own accord" rather than sit them down and explain that their work isn't up to scratch or that the business can't afford the extra labour costs. The employees know (or at least suspect) their boss will dump them at a moment's notice, so they have little sense of commitment and likewise, they'll dump their boss and go elsewhere as soon as a marginally better opportunity comes along. Something a lot of employers don't seem to realise is that a good work ethic is a skill which can be taught and which can be learnt.
I hear that over in the US businesses like restraunts hire you for a shift and then send you home and hire you for the second shift, e.g. they get you in for the breakfast shift and they roster you off until it is time for the lunchtime shift and then possibly roster you off until the evening shift. Works well for the business, not that you are sitting around doing nothing between shifts but certainly the work is not enough to support a full crew. However it must play hell with your day, you can't get a second job between shifts, your travel increases. I figure people just hang around not getting paid until their next shift. Pretty much like getting a massive pay drop, you are occupied for a full day but only get half a day's wages, plus tips. If this is true, and I haven't got any verification, then it seems that the government involvement can't do anything about 'abusing' the workforce even if they can legislate the businesses.
In our industry the minimum shift is 2 hours, regardless of whether you worked 2 hours or not you are entitled to receive 2 hours pay if you are doing a shift.
Never stopped them before. If you're unemployed for 20 years you're not employable and should be on some disability support (yes, yes, if you believe in that sort of thing!). I can't imagine applying for 3 jobs a week or whatever it is would continue for 20 years. Perhaps these are the people who'll be picking up rubbish on the highways for 15 hours fairly soon in the 'work for dole' scheme, (but I thought Howard had one of those already so they should have been noticed during that.) Gotta stop listening to the news. I think I'll opt for the History Channel. Same result but less stress.
As has been mentioned already the workforce is moving to a 'casual' workforce and as long as employers can get away with these new laws workers will suffer.
What do you mean "get away with"? Employers are not the government or people's mother, and there is no reason that someone has to give a job to another person.
