-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@ACT-Crusader @Rancid-Schnitzel Labor were looking to restore penalty rates, increase Newstart, deliver pay boosts to childcare, and a few other things that would help actual workers and those using social support.
How is that NOT looking after workers or pursuing a reasonable approach to wages stagnation and a slowing economy?
Increase Newstart - what’s the incentive there? There is no evidence that an increased benefit improves people’s chances of finding employment. And an increase does cost the budget a fair whack.
Deliver pay boosts to childcare - there is no guarantee that would actually occur. This would be a matter for the Fair Work Commission and given the relevant unions have already run a failed case, did Labor think that them just intervening would make it so? Doesn’t work like that. Unless Labor was proposing to legislate then it was out of their hands.
Restore penalty rates - probably one of the great myths of the campaign. Gillard set up the process that enabled this decision to occur. Despite the rhetoric around it, the 4 year review started well before Abbott/Turnbull were in power. So when Shorten said as a Minister for Industrial Relations said he would respect the decision of the umpire, he was not so beholden to the union movement. Then when they got a decision they didn’t like he copped out. Anyway the decision itself doesn’t affect that many people - only those on awards in retail and hospitality that actually work on Sundays. Plus they still get penalty rates it’s just that they were reduced by Fair Work not abolished like the ACTU would have everyone believe.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@ACT-Crusader @Rancid-Schnitzel Labor were looking to restore penalty rates, increase Newstart, deliver pay boosts to childcare, and a few other things that would help actual workers and those using social support.
How is that NOT looking after workers or pursuing a reasonable approach to wages stagnation and a slowing economy?
Penalty rates were subject to review thanks to Kevin Rudd's government under s.156 of the Fair Work Act 2009. They established the independent Fair Work Commission. So to have Shorten tweet this following the union challenge is a gross act of hypocrisy
I agree with increasing Newstart given it's basically unlivable and the impost is Sweet FA on the budget.
Childcare doesn't deserve pay boosts. The argument for it is spurious given it relies on qualifications that are mandated by clueless clowns. Qualifications for babysitting. Doing what parents all around the world do without recompense but on limited hours. The Productivity Commission pointed out it was likely to be inefficient and ineffective. That's before we acknowledge that Labor's policy only covered half of the employees and the for-profit sector is doing fine.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Aussie Politics:
Increase Newstart - what’s the incentive there? There is no evidence that an increased benefit improves people’s chances of finding employment. And an increase does cost the budget a fair whack.
As @antipodean says: is unliveable right now and hasn't changed in real terms for a couple of decades, in fact had probably gone backwards against CPI.
No doubt child care needs reform but every industry does at a certain point - in this case to go beyond just colouring in and singing songs. There are links to better outcomes for kids in early childhood education (particularly disadvantaged kids). While I disagree with increased duration of formal education, as all it does is create good little office either drones IMHO, there needs to be a better approach to education from ages 1 through to mid teens. Rising tide, all boats etc
Removal of penalty rates was supposed to create extra jobs and give the economy a kick along. It has so far failed to do this, so restoring them should not hurt anyone, tho at this point it's just shuffling deck chairs
The RBA is considering a rate cut next month. This isn't a victory unless your LVR is in a bad position. Where's the good financial management of the last 6 years gotten us?
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
Removal of penalty rates was supposed to create extra jobs and give the economy a kick along. It has so far failed to do this, so restoring them should not hurt anyone, tho at this point it's just shuffling deck chairs
Penalty rates in 2019 bear no resemblance to the argument in 1947. I see no reason why people who elect to work on weekends should be remunerated more than people who can only work during the week for exactly the same job.
The RBA is considering a rate cut next month. This isn't a victory unless your LVR is in a bad position. Where's the good financial management of the last 6 years gotten us?
Ask the Senate. If we passed some of the savings measures it wouldn't be as bad.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Penalty rates in 2019 bear no resemblance to the argument in 1947. I see no reason why people who elect to work on weekends should be remunerated more than people who can only work during the week for exactly the same job.
It is a different argument, particularly with far more weekend trade hours. There are still a range of issues to consider like full/part time status, benefits, etc.
For an office johnny like me the point is moot. But if you're working weekends and nobody else you know is, that would be the tradeoff.
-
@antipodean same goes for public holidays? Sunday restaurant surcharges as well? Peak pricing for holidays in school break?
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean same goes for public holidays? Sunday restaurant surcharges as well? Peak pricing for holidays in school break?
No, a loading for public holidays is reasonable. They're rare and most people spend them with families. Sunday trading is the norm.
-
Climate hysteria cost Labor this election.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@NTA That doesn't answer the fundamental question of why should you be remunerated more for doing the same job? Sunday trading is a social norm now. The idea you should be paid a loading for it is ridiculous.
Yeah nah. Saturdays and Sundays are still the weekend when social events happen.
Have no issue with bring paid more to miss out on a normal life.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Aussie Politics:
Climate hysteria cost Labor this election.
Amongst other hysteria. Don't think it was just climate.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@NTA That doesn't answer the fundamental question of why should you be remunerated more for doing the same job? Sunday trading is a social norm now. The idea you should be paid a loading for it is ridiculous.
Yeah nah. Saturdays and Sundays are still the weekend when social events happen.
Have no issue with bring paid more to miss out on a normal life.
You need to keep in mind the working hours and who is employed in the hospitality, fast food and retail industries on weekends. Also that the penalty rates as @NTA pointed out earlier, weren't removed completely, merely slightly reduced.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Aussie Politics:
Climate hysteria cost Labor this election.
Amongst other hysteria. Don't think it was just climate.
I disagree, it was an issue that sucked a lot of resources and oxygen from both major parties, UAP and Get Up and that is hard to account for but electorally it ended in a stalemate.
The clearest path for victory for Labor was in the outer suburban and smaller city seats: Bass, Macquarie, Chisolm etc needed to go the way of Dunkley and Braddon. Their inability to move them was purely economic policy and Shorten IMO.
If Labor's policy was to open five new coal plants by Christmas they may have picked up two seats in Queensland and lost five senate seats to the Greens across the country.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Aussie Politics:
Climate hysteria cost Labor this election.
Amongst other hysteria. Don't think it was just climate.
Depends on the extent to which you ascribe "climate" argument. In the end it was simple economics - the largely middle class and aspirational workers who were rightfully concerned about their opportunities to improve their lot and develop self sufficiency in retirement. Labor shat on this and in doing so alienated them.
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else. Pandering to upper middle class in the inner-city is attempting to secure an additional percentage of people who are ultimately going to direct their preferences your way anyway. It's pointless and self defeating.
The worst aspect is the aspirational blue collar workers is a demographic the Australian Labor party should own thanks to Hawke and Keating.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else.
Two things:
They can't bleed their senate vote to the Greens, particularly under the new system.
Unfortunately those 1 or 2 inner city seats often must be saved as traditionally high ranking members come from those types of seats. Defending Kooyong was a non-negotiable for the Coalition as losing the sitting treasurer was unacceptable.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else.
Two things:
They can't bleed their senate vote to the Greens, particularly under the new system.
They won't bleed enough and even if they did that would in the long run be a good thing because the rest of Australia would then see what obstructionist fluffy bunnies the Greens are, They aren't mature enough to be a political party. Hansard shows they voted against SSM and climate change. The blowtorch needs to applied to them by Labor to wrest those votes back.
Unfortunately those 1 or 2 inner city seats often must be saved as traditionally high ranking members come from those types of seats. Defending Kooyong was a non-negotiable for the Coalition as losing the sitting treasurer was unacceptable.
I was talking about Labor. Pandering to the Greens didn't pick up Kooyong for Labor.
-
@dogmeat said in Aussie Politics:
@booboo so I assume that you are happy to pay more for items you buy at the weekend?
Hmm .. I see your point. And I can already see how you might disagree with the following "logic", but I think that's a different argument.
I'm of the opinion that these are costs that should be factored into normal business overheads.
Business has to make a decision whether it's worth opening on Sundays for the extra revenue at a slightly elevated cost or not.
Charge me 10c more for my coffee so you don't charge the 17% premium on public holidays (they do that here - does it happen in NZ ?).
Also, I get the point above (by @antipodean ?) about how climate influenced all policies so yeah @Baron-Silas-Greenback was ri... rig... righ... less wrong
-
@booboo It's OK - I was 90% being a smartarse but there is a point as well.
Retailers isn't just about big box and chain stores. There's a helluva lot of small hospo and high street retailers who have to stay open long hours just to be competitive. A lot of these are owner operators but there are also a sizeable number with one or two staff. Paying penal rates just kills these poor buggers.
I am philosophically opposed to the concept of penal rates anyway. I've always got rid of them at the earliest opportunity. Just pay your worker a decent wage and fix your labour cost/hour and then provide a good widget/service and let the market decide. Weekend work is slightly different but my particular hate is overtime after x number of hours. Just encourages poor productivity and in my experience people are more productive when they're fresh rather than tired. Sit people down tell them overtime has to go but I'm giving you a pay raise for every hour you work not just the ones at the end of the day.
Aussie Politics