All Topics / Opinionated! / What would getting rid of penalty reates for overtime really achieve?

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Profile photo of RaistRaist
    Participant
    @raist
    Join Date: 2014
    Post Count: 1

    August 14, 2014 at 7:51 pm
    The first thing to fix the economy is to get rid of penalty rates for overtime and leave loading on annual leave. Bump the GST to 15% and abolish all other taxes. Cut off the entitlement mentality of the parasites who sponge off the government and who could hold down a ‘normal’ job.

    The economy is stuffed because most people wont simply get in and have a go at supporting themselves.

    The above is a reply to Peter’s “Growth Warning Emerging” article.

    As far as people “sponging of the government and feeling entitled” I totally agree!!

    But getting rid of penalty rates for overtime might have a massive negative affect on the property market and create a wider divide between the wealthy and poor. The lower end of the “middle class” would become much, much poorer.
    Think of all the people that don’t want to sponge of the tax payers but give up time with their families by working at night and weekends so their kids can go to a better school and they can pay off their mortgage quicker. If they didn’t have the penalty rates, they might not have been able to save a deposit in the first place.
    If the first home buyers could not afford to save a deposit for their family home because of a loss in penalty rates, what would that do to the property market?

    Profile photo of BennyBenny
    Moderator
    @benny
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 1,376

    Hi Raist,
    Good on you for adding your thoughts re Penalty Rates. I can certainly see your point of view there, and agree that this could/would have an effect on many workers. And yes, any change there would directly affect their discretionary income.

    On the other side of the coin though, in this 24/7 world we live in, the payment of double and “two and a half times” rates are a WHOPPING uplift that employers must pay, or they just cannot open on some days.

    IF these rates were lessened, the employer might well be able to open, and even be able to employ more people. Any lessening of the “average” income (through lessening of those huge penalty rates – e.g. maybe make time-and-a-half the max allowable) would work its way through the system, likely leading to lower costs for many things too (including housing….). More people earning a less amount would help the economy by providing more people with a bit of discretionary income, while lessening the “Centrelink” burden on the Govt. It may also allow small companies to open on days when they currently cant, thus providing more paid days for those who can work them.

    The supply/demand curve would be altered – but with more workers, that could lead to an overall better outcome, couldn’t it? It is a huge subject – and there are likely many angles to this debate. Let’s hear some more…..

    JMO, (just my opinion), and thanks for putting yours out there too, Raist,

    Benny

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by Profile photo of Benny Benny.
    Profile photo of vagirl2012vagirl2012
    Participant
    @vagirl2012
    Join Date: 2012
    Post Count: 47

    TBH I’m probably in the “keep the penalty rates” camp, but I can certainly see the argument for abolishing. The current rates are very high and simply out of the question for some smaller operators, who can’t afford to pay staff outside of “normal” operating hours. However, people working these shifts need to receive some sort of compensation. It’s a sticky topic and one that won’t be easily finalised any time soon.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.