I need to vent!

[griffin]

yes that is true that some unskilled are getting paid more then teachers,police etc.. but if you were to work on a weekend or a public holiday then they should be well paid for giving up time with their families. a lot of the unskilled make a lot of their extra pay by doing that so they can afford to live a little bit more comfortable.

Just a query, not a criticism - if someone only works on the weekend because it is at higher rates, shouldn't they just get paid normal rate because they aren't "giving up time with families" since they have 5 other days to spend with them.
Wouldn't it be fairer to be paid as "overtime", ONLY IF it is a person who works the 5 weekdays AND the weekend (which keeps them away from their families, or personal free time)?
That way, there is only the one penalty rate all week, paid to people who work more than 5 consecutive days in a week. We are becoming a 7-day society, so why have different pay rates to different days? If two people work 5 days a week, and one does Mon-Fri, while the other does Thur-Mon - wouldn't it be fair to pay them the same money for doing the same amount of work? Bump up the regular hourly rate to offset the reduction of the higher weekend rates, and just pay overtime for anyone doing more than 5 consecutive days in a week (if they don't end up with a 2-day "weekend" somewhere in the week). And then after-hours earns the regular penalty of being night rate.
The last place I worked at would have 5-day rosters, but people would earn more because they worked on a Saturday or Sunday, despite doing the same 40 hours and having a "weekend" somewhere in the week.
Some people may target a weekend job because it pays more, just to cover the high cost-of-living (with a family & house to pay off)... but others do it because they are young or single and it earns enough to not work the rest of the week. So if you get paid more for the exact same work (just because it is a different day of the week), shouldn't preference go to people who need it more?

[SMHFConvoy]

I wouldn't believe everything Abbott and Hockey say. The SPC thing is a lie.

As for the Labor Govt, Gillard got more things through the senate than any other PM.

[iamirondude]

I wouldn't believe everything Abbott and Hockey say. The SPC thing is a lie.

As for the Labor Govt, Gillard got more things through the senate than any other PM.

i really hope they save SPC. they've let too many aussie owned companies fall to the foreign raiders. maybe if they didn't get rid of the tariffs on imports then maybe they would stood a chance. all of the countries that we've signed free trade agreements still have all of their tariffs and subsidy's still in place when they were suppose to abolish them.

[Megatran]

i really hope they save SPC. they've let too many aussie owned companies fall to the foreign raiders.

Uhmmm .......... Coca Cola Amatil acquired SPC Ardmona some years ago dude.

[iamirondude]

i did not know that. if that's the case coca-cola should bail them out. it's not like they're short of money.

[Skullcruncher]

i did not know that. if that's the case coca-cola should bail them out. it's not like they're short of money.

And they are actually already profitable… both sides will be exaggerating the details but I wouldn’t be surprised if a good chunk of the workforce hasn’t been there for 20+years and are on $100K plus.

The old bag who sits behind me right now – been with the company 30 plus years and useless as a bag of potatoes. She blatantly has said she staying until she retires as no other jobs will pay her this well.

[iamirondude]

that just reminded me of this old bloke i use to work with. he whinged and bitch how he wasn't making any bonuses so the bosses scrap it. so from then on we never went over quota and when the boss complain we just said" bring back the bonus and we'll go back to what we were pushing out daily." the thing was for most of us, we needed the bonus to prop our pays up as there was no overtime or crap like that.

[iamirondude]

Just a query, not a criticism - if someone only works on the weekend because it is at higher rates, shouldn't they just get paid normal rate because they aren't "giving up time with families" since they have 5 other days to spend with them.
Wouldn't it be fairer to be paid as "overtime", ONLY IF it is a person who works the 5 weekdays AND the weekend (which keeps them away from their families, or personal free time)?
That way, there is only the one penalty rate all week, paid to people who work more than 5 consecutive days in a week. We are becoming a 7-day society, so why have different pay rates to different days? If two people work 5 days a week, and one does Mon-Fri, while the other does Thur-Mon - wouldn't it be fair to pay them the same money for doing the same amount of work? Bump up the regular hourly rate to offset the reduction of the higher weekend rates, and just pay overtime for anyone doing more than 5 consecutive days in a week (if they don't end up with a 2-day "weekend" somewhere in the week). And then after-hours earns the regular penalty of being night rate.
The last place I worked at would have 5-day rosters, but people would earn more because they worked on a Saturday or Sunday, despite doing the same 40 hours and having a "weekend" somewhere in the week.
Some people may target a weekend job because it pays more, just to cover the high cost-of-living (with a family & house to pay off)... but others do it because they are young or single and it earns enough to not work the rest of the week. So if you get paid more for the exact same work (just because it is a different day of the week), shouldn't preference go to people who need it more?

if you work only on the weekends, no it should be at normal rates until you go over your 8hrs. if you work say thurs to mon it to should be at normal rates. i mean that if you go outside your normal work hrs(eg 9 to 5 or 6 2 etc etc) i know of places that pay you overtime after 8 hrs and others pay it after you've done your 38hrs but if your on-call then you should be getting double time as it's outside of normal working hrs eg 2am in the morning.

[millhouse]

The last place I worked at would have 5-day rosters, but people would earn more because they worked on a Saturday or Sunday, despite doing the same 40 hours and having a "weekend" somewhere in the week.

I worked in retail before my current 9-5 role. Retail was 7 days, with one day of late night trading, rotating rosters.

I can tell you the amount of work on peak periods (ie: weekends, public holidays, boxing day, etc) definitely earned the extra pay. While I worked in computer sales and had base + commission, the poor kids on the counter, selling CDs/games/working the storeroom didn't. It's definitely a case of penalty work. Otherwise people are less likely to work the harder shifts, and you're going to have more customers with worse/less staff.

If (and lets just say a massive figure that i'm sure has no basis in reality) 50% of people work 9-5 and do their shopping outside of those hours, shouldn't the people working to service the usual demand + that 50% of people be paid more for the less desirable hours?

That being said, I'm sure the system needs a kick in the ass, but shitcanning penalty rates completely wouldn't be the way to do it.