Random Random thoughts and discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Wampeter said:
Bear in mind penalty rates were introduced at a time when getting the weekend off was the aim. The intention was for businesses to close on weekends so employees could have the weekend off. They had the option of doing business if it was important enough to pay the price.
Not personal but your argument sounds a bit like you want the penalties but also have the services available on weekends at no cost and that comes across a bit selfish.
I get Nurses cant work office hours, and really for the hoops you are required to jump through to become one, and the stresses of the job, it's only the penalty rates that make it anything like a fair wage.
In an egalitarian country the same rights apply to everyone though.
I dont know Conliglio no 1's circumstances but for contractors and people on high wages is the only exception to me.
Click to expand...
"Not personal" or the old chestnut, "no offence, but..." does not preclude one from finding any such comments which are preceded by these statements as offensive. I suggest you read my post again. In no way whatsoever can you guage with any accuracy what my views are, either way. I did not divulge anything in absolutes.

The fact is that I am somewhat fiscally conservative. That is mutually exclusive from selfishness, though. However, one who leans slightly to the left yet points the finger at anyone who doesn't could be seen as righteous.

Being centre right on fiscal issues says nothing about my pro-left social views. I don't feel comfortable at all with families, especially low-income families having their take home pay slashed. However, common sense must prevail.

If it's costing establishments too much to remain open at times which demand high penalty rates, what's your solution? Stagnate the economy by forcing establishments to close? That's bad for small and medium business owners as well as your retail/hospitality worker.

Personally I'd be happy to pay a weekend surcharge at dining establishments on weekends, if it meant that the service could remain open while workers could earn a reasonable wage. How's that for selfish?

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, so economic initiatives like that would not work as many would deem it too expensive to eat out, thus rendering any initiative like this redundant in many or most suburbs/towns across Australia.

To say we live in an egalitarian country but to espouse socialistic ideology is a logical fallacy. Everyone in Australia has equal right and opportunities, but that doesn't mean that every job yields the same specific working conditions or entitlements.

Within reason, every industry needs to strive to best serve employees as well as employers. We also live in a country with laissez-faire economy and like it or not, that means minimal government intervention. The fairwork commision has decided that the current penalty rates are counter-intuitive to economic growth.

Not everyone has the ability to be a doctor/lawyer or any blue ribbon profession. I value every person equally who does their best to put back into society and to behave in a manner condusive to supporting the sustainability of society and the planet.

I am, however, very wary about slipping down a path whereby people feel entitled to something they didn't earn, or something which was once sustainable but isn't applicable in today's progressive society. It's a fact of life that things change, so the rigid and inflexible types will find the world increasingly challenging moving forward.

Don't take this post as personal, either. I like you and you seem like a genuinely good bloke. But, I don't enjoy being misunderstood, which is most definitely what you've done here, and accordingly made a judgment based on an incorrect assessment. I resent the notion of selfishness when my sole motivation for becoming a nurse was to be anything but.

My ATAR alone suggests I could have accepted uni offers for careers which pay a lot more and could very much be deemed "selfish" careers. However, I followed my heart and chose a career with job satisfaction being my primary motivator. Helping people and serving the community is more rewarding to me than any pay packet.
 
Giant Heart said:
"Not personal" or the old chestnut, "no offence, but..." does not preclude one from finding any such comments which are preceded by these statements as offensive. I suggest you read my post again. In no way whatsoever can you guage with any accuracy what my views are, either way. I did not divulge anything in absolutes.

The fact is that I am somewhat fiscally conservative. That is mutually exclusive from selfishness, though. However, one who leans slightly to the left yet points the finger at anyone who doesn't could be seen as righteous.

Being centre right on fiscal issues says nothing about my pro-left social views. I don't feel comfortable at all with families, especially low-income families having their take home pay slashed. However, common sense must prevail.

If it's costing establishments too much to remain open at times which demand high penalty rates, what's your solution? Stagnate the economy by forcing establishments to close? That's bad for small and medium business owners as well as your retail/hospitality worker.

Personally I'd be happy to pay a weekend surcharge at dining establishments on weekends, if it meant that the service could remain open while workers could earn a reasonable wage. How's that for selfish?

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, so economic initiatives like that would not work as many would deem it too expensive to eat out, thus rendering any initiative like this redundant in many or most suburbs/towns across Australia.

To say we live in an egalitarian country but to espouse socialistic ideology is a logical fallacy. Everyone in Australia has equal right and opportunities, but that doesn't mean that every job yields the same specific working conditions or entitlements.

Within reason, every industry needs to strive to best serve employees as well as employers. We also live in a country with laissez-faire economy and like it or not, that means minimal government intervention. The fairwork commision has decided that the current penalty rates are counter-intuitive to economic growth.

Not everyone has the ability to be a doctor/lawyer or any blue ribbon profession. I value every person equally who does their best to put back into society and to behave in a manner condusive to supporting the sustainability of society and the planet.

I am, however, very wary about slipping down a path whereby people feel entitled to something they didn't earn, or something which was once sustainable but isn't applicable in today's progressive society. It's a fact of life that things change, so the rigid and inflexible types will find the world increasingly challenging moving forward.

Don't take this post as personal, either. I like you and you seem like a genuinely good bloke. But, I don't enjoy being misunderstood, which is most definitely what you've done here, and accordingly made a judgment based on an incorrect assessment. I resent the notion of selfishness when my sole motivation for becoming a nurse was to be anything but.

My ATAR alone suggests I could have accepted uni offers for careers which pay a lot more and could very much be deemed "selfish" careers. However, I followed my heart and chose a career with job satisfaction being my primary motivator. Helping people and serving the community is more rewarding to me than any pay packet.
Click to expand...
I used that old chestnut to make it clear I was criticising the idea.
I have enough exposure to your chosen profession to know the only logical reason for choosing it is because of wish to help people that can jump the hoops could make more money. I though that was clear in my post. I wont go into the decision to require nurses to be degree qualified but I have been present at many a full and frank discussion at the Royal Oak after work on the topic.
My criticism is of the idea that if business is not profitable then the staff have to give. It is limited to that idea.
Values have a cost, ultimately the decision is whether to pay it. To me it's perfectly reasonable to accept reduced services on weekends if that's what it takes.
I cant see that an abstract concept like "growing the economy" comes first.

I'll give you an example
I come from a mining town and traditionally it's a pretty dangerous occupation. The unions since the early 20th century until this one enforced a rule that any death on any mine in the town meant all mines in the town would close for 24 hours. It makes no logical sense and certainly cost the economy. With different mines owned by separate entities it would probably be illegal under current industrial relations law.
It forced the companies to value life because there was a real cost in not prioritising safety, and undoubtedly saved lives.
The point us companies are essentially amoral, though the people running them aren't necessarily so. Thats the context of my not agreeing with other hard with other hard won concessions

I get you found the word selfish offensive and it was insensitive of me to use it.I regret the offense but It's a reality that each successive genetation is more openly self-centred, and that's the context in which it was meant. I didn't think I suggested you were a fascist, and if I did it was certainly accidental.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Wampeter said:
I used that old chestnut to make it clear I was criticising the idea.
I have enough exposure to your chosen profession to know the only logical reason for choosing it is because of wish to help people that can jump the hoops could make more money. I though that was clear in my post. I wont go into the decision to require nurses to be degree qualified but I have been present at many a full and frank discussion at the Royal Oak after work on the topic.
My criticism is of the idea that if business is not profitable then the staff have to give. It is limited to that idea.
Values have a cost, ultimately the decision is whether to pay it. To me it's perfectly reasonable to accept reduced services on weekends if that's what it takes.
I cant see that an abstract concept like "growing the economy" comes first.

I'll give you an example
I come from a mining town and traditionally it's a pretty dangerous occupation. The unions since the early 20th century until this one enforced a rule that any death on any mine in the town meant all mines in the town would close for 24 hours. It makes no logical sense and certainly cost the economy. With different mines owned by separate entities it would probably be illegal under current industrial relations law.
It forced the companies to value life because there was a real cost in not prioritising safety, and undoubtedly saved lives.
The point us companies are essentially amoral, though the people running them aren't necessarily so. Thats the context of my not agreeing with other hard with other hard won concessions

I get you found the word selfish offensive and it was insensitive of me to use it.I regret the offense but It's a reality that each successive genetation is more openly self-centred, and that's the context in which it was meant. I didn't think I suggested you were a fascist, and if I did it was certainly accidental.
Click to expand...
I won't delve too deep into the decision for nurses to be degree qualified either. I've heard enough arguments from both sides to make my head hurt. Many of the old firm, who are brilliant nurses with 40+ years experience feel aggrieved with a perception that they're inferior and less-than-professional compared to Gen Y tertiary qualified nurses.

What I will say is that on the positive side, degree qualified nurses ensure an overall higher standard of new applicant and help to raise the perception of our profession from a vocational carer to a qualified health care professional. There's certainly negatives, but I won't go down that path here...

Back to the topic at hand: how far does your notion of unprofitable businesses requesting employees "to give" extend? You'd go so far as to cut off your no to spite your face? Many unions would do that as many unions have taken industrial action too far in the past.

Economic growth isn't an abstract concept in this discussion. It is the sole reason we're having this discussion. The Fair Work Commission don't make decisions for fun and they don't make decisions with the sole intention of lining up the pockets of big businesses at the expense of the average worker without good reason.

In the case of family owned businesses, many are struggling. So many pubs across country towns all around the country cannot afford to keep their doors open. I won't list the various expenses that many publicans face, which are ever increasing well beyond parity with inflation, other than to say that they're crippling. Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that low-income earners are getting short changed. I'm increasingly concerned about the social divide in Australia and indeed the western world. Unfortunately though, with many industries including manufacturing, companies are having to amortise R&D costs by using cheap labour.

What does this teach us? Tech jobs will be on the rise. I don't want to sound elitist, but in a country like Australia, our edge is not in manufacturing where our standard of living has driven up wages much higher than a Chinese/Taiwanese worker. Our edge will increasingly come from having a dearth of qualified people in STEM subjects.

It's funny that you mention the mines. My boyfriend is a diesel mechanic who works FIFO 2/1 out of Mount Isa. He most definitely does have the industrial action of previous generations to thank for why his industry is, on the whole, much safer than in the past. He's also paid no penalty rates. However, his flat rate is a rather generous hourly rate, so it balances out.

Just finally, whilst I'll take this post as a retraction to your "selfish" comment, you couldn't help but throw out another equally offensive generalisation about millennials being "self-centred". I find that is a myth perpetuated by many baby-boomers' failings to understand and identify with social progression.

It's easier to confide with other like-minded and equally willfully-ignorant individuals in a toxic pit confirmation bias than it is to try and understand the perspective of the millennial and have to deal with cognitive dissocance. Individualism is one of the hallmarks of Gen-Y, but once again that's mutually exclusive from entitlement.
 
Giant Heart said:
I won't delve too deep into the decision for nurses to be degree qualified either. I've heard enough arguments from both sides to make my head hurt. Many of the old firm, who are brilliant nurses with 40+ years experience feel aggrieved with a perception that they're inferior and less-than-professional compared to Gen Y tertiary qualified nurses.

What I will say is that on the positive side, degree qualified nurses ensure an overall higher standard of new applicant and help to raise the perception of our profession from a vocational carer to a qualified health care professional. There's certainly negatives, but I won't go down that path here...

Back to the topic at hand: how far does your notion of unprofitable businesses requesting employees "to give" extend? You'd go so far as to cut off your no to spite your face? Many unions would do that as many unions have taken industrial action too far in the past.

Economic growth isn't an abstract concept in this discussion. It is the sole reason we're having this discussion. The Fair Work Commission don't make decisions for fun and they don't make decisions with the sole intention of lining up the pockets of big businesses at the expense of the average worker without good reason.

In the case of family owned businesses, many are struggling. So many pubs across country towns all around the country cannot afford to keep their doors open. I won't list the various expenses that many publicans face, which are ever increasing well beyond parity with inflation, other than to say that they're crippling. Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that low-income earners are getting short changed. I'm increasingly concerned about the social divide in Australia and indeed the western world. Unfortunately though, with many industries including manufacturing, companies are having to amortise R&D costs by using cheap labour.

What does this teach us? Tech jobs will be on the rise. I don't want to sound elitist, but in a country like Australia, our edge is not in manufacturing where our standard of living has driven up wages much higher than a Chinese/Taiwanese worker. Our edge will increasingly come from having a dearth of qualified people in STEM subjects.

It's funny that you mention the mines. My boyfriend is a diesel mechanic who works FIFO 2/1 out of Mount Isa. He most definitely does have the industrial action of previous generations to thank for why his industry is, on the whole, much safer than in the past. He's also paid no penalty rates. However, his flat rate is a rather generous hourly rate, so it balances out.

Just finally, whilst I'll take this post as a retraction to your "selfish" comment, you couldn't help but throw out another equally offensive generalisation about millennials being "self-centred". I find that is a myth perpetuated by many baby-boomers' failings to understand and identify with social progression.

It's easier to confide with other like-minded and equally willfully-ignorant individuals in a toxic pit confirmation bias than it is to try and understand the perspective of the millennial and have to deal with cognitive dissocance. Individualism is one of the hallmarks of Gen-Y, but once again that's mutually exclusive from entitlement.
Click to expand...
I dont see any point in going further down this path. My view isn't without support and is progressive. I will leave your posts alone, sadly place you on ignore and perhaps you could give me the same courtesy.
 
Wampeter said:
I dont see any point in going further down this path. My view isn't without support and is progressive. I will leave your posts alone, sadly place you on ignore and perhaps you could give me the same courtesy.
Click to expand...
Wow. Ignore is a bit of an overreaction! I'm happy to leave the discussion where it's at, but I won't be placing you on ignore as I feel that's far from necessary. I'm sorry you feel that way about me. :(
 
d988c567b95c3d0737858dad78e4e9c1.jpg


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just bought tkt to the Crows game through our website. Feel for Crows fans at $87.50 for a seat. Admittedly there were cheaper GA options but the most expensive at Spotless is $65.
Expect there'll be the cheersquad plus a few, really looking forward to it.
 
Aarghhh! They've renamed it UNSW Canberra Oval. FFS it's Manuka Oval morons!
UNSW Manuka Oval if it has to be sponsored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top