Aussie cafe bosses erupt over $78 an hour pay for dish washers
Kitchen hands and wait staff working public holidays will soon make over $78 an hour, as cafe bosses sound the alarm over a “relentless” crisis.


News.com.au
June 9, 2026

Aussie hospitality titans have warned the nation’s iconic cafe culture is on the brink of collapse due to a “relentless” crisis as venues bleed cash just to keep the doors open.
Before the Fair Work Commission’s latest annual wage review bumped award rates up by 4.75 per cent and pushed the baseline minimum wage to $26.44 an hour, cafes around the nation were already at a tipping point.

On public holidays, when the 150 per cent penalty rates kick in, the lowest-paid cafe workers will make a staggering $78/hour from July 1.

Industry leaders say the system has become entirely “dysfunctional”, forcing business owners to choose between slugging customers with massive surcharges or turning off the lights completely.

John Hart, the executive chairman of the Restaurant and Catering Australia — a national peak body representing more than 57,000 cafes, restaurants and caterers — said cafes are under immense pressure and that was only amplified on public holidays.

“It’s dysfunctional at the moment. The wages have gone up to a point where it means businesses effectively can’t operate profitably at any point,” Mr Hart said.


The pressure becomes critical when a public holiday rolls around on the calendar.

“It just makes it that much more pronounced on a public holiday because of the rates. It brings the decision right to the fore as to whether you open,” he said.

“You’re not opening because you’re gonna make money; you’re opening because you want to be there for your customers and you might want the cash flow... but you’re gonna lose money. It’s pretty much that straightforward.”


He said cafes nationally are now, on average, spending more than 50 per cent of their revenue on wages. He said adding a surcharge to prices, which 70 per cent of cafes apply on public holidays, made opening “a little bit more bearable” - but that doesn’t mean they are making money.

Most cafes have surcharges on weekends and public holidays.

Industry experts say cafes are under immense pressure. Hampson
“The problem is that if you don’t open and you choose to not open and not apply a surcharge, you’ve got your business sitting idle that you’re paying rent on,” Mr Hart said. “So you’re losing money anyway.”

‘Muppets’: Cafe boss erupts, says venues making $35 an hour

Phillip Di Bella, founder of Di Bella Coffee and head of The Coffee Commune, an initiative representing more than 1300 independent cafe owners, outlined how much profit an average cafe makes on a public holiday.

When making a baseline of 100 coffees an hour at $7 each, so $700 in revenue, wages would swallow $350 of that, goods would cost $140, GST would be $70 and utilities and rent would take $105. So the total profit made on those coffees would be just $35.

Despite this, he said the public debate around minimum wages completely misses the point and that keyboard warriors who tell struggling businesses “if you can’t afford wages, don’t open” were out-of-touch “muppets”.

He said hardly anyone is on minimum wage in hospitality because in order to attract them, they have to pay more.

“Our baristas are averaging $33, $34 an hour. So in order to attract good people, you’ve got to pay above the minimum wage anyway,” he said. “So that’s one misconception is people understanding what minimum wage is and what we’re paying.

“You’ll not find many people when you are running at three per cent unemployment, most people are not paying minimum wage. And if you’ve got really good staff, you’re certainly not paying minimum wage.”

Coffee industry expert Phillip Di Bello.

He said to run a semi-profitable business, the percentage of wages should be no more than 30 per cent, maximum 35 per cent of takings.

“Wages across 1300 cafes that we get the data from are running at 45 to 50 per cent of turnover,” he said. “Now, if wages are running at up to 50 per cent, that means they’re either overstaffed — which they’re not, because they can’t afford to be — or two, the customer’s not paying enough for their product.”

Mr Di Bella notes that a standard weekend brunch has become a loss-leader for independent operators due to these ratios.

“So when the customer says, ‘oh, why’s my bacon and eggs $30 on a weekend?’, well 50 per cent of that has just gone straight to wages,” he said. “

So what is the problem?.  You want people to work on weekends and public holidays?.  Then you pay your penalty rates.   :(

I read the article and the comments and the whole story is fake news Ltd rubbish-

“ Wrong…

“When making a baseline of 100 coffees an hour at $7 each, so $700 in revenue, wages would swallow $350 of that, goods would cost $140, GST would be $70 and utilities and rent would take $105. So the total profit made on those coffees would be just $35.”

ALL businesses get a GST credit. They only pay GST on the difference between what GST they PAID vs what they COLLECTED.

The above statement assume they collected 70 and didn’t pay any themselves.

Also, if revenue is 700, GST is roughly 63.64.

It would be 70 if revenue was 770.

Why does this matter, it’s only 7$. Because all the mistakes add up.

If profit was 35, now it’s 42. Oh and with the GST credit, it might be 55 PER HOUR. They trade for 8, PROFIT was over 400. That day.

Their “worst day” and the boss pockets 400 for doing nothing at all and having the day off himself. Crying poor cause someone else is being paid penalty rates.

I get it. There are other costs too. Super, downtime, etc. Can’t imagine 100 coffees per hour is realistic.

My point, don’t fudge figures, it sends the credibility of the whole article into question”.

Quote:

ALL businesses get a GST credit. They only pay GST on the difference between what GST they PAID vs what they COLLECTED. The above statement assume they collected 70 and didn’t pay any themselves.

How much would they pay themselves? Their biggest cost would be staff. No GST on that.

Well - when a government creates massive inflation as a tool to impoverish the majority so they will beg to be brought to heel - the good people will anyway - the rest will become Underworld criminal masters etc - and then plays at 'looking after the lowest paid' by raising costs again .. what more can yo expect?

I warned yez all years ago that the social and economic management of this country would lead us to a tyrannical government of either left or right - Albo looks and acts weak - everyone laughs as he drags us all under... here reminds me of what one silly woman journalist once said about John Howard - many look at this little toad and laugh, but he was more like a stone fish, lying (sic) on the bottom until prey cam near, then striking unawares.

AlboCorp is our first attempt at an extreme 'socialist' government - not 'communist' quite - but one with an overbearing central government dictating all things to all people... and forsaking the social contract in doing so, and so as to cement for themselves a place in government forever .. a dictatorship by any other name.

Despite their sucking up for the feminine vote - many women are totally disgusted with them... they know as well as you and I that forcing women down our throats at every turn is not having the desired result, and that forcing transwomen down their throats is having the opposite effect - since most women see unwarranted advantage being given to those they would least vote for anyway... and nothing real for their sons and daughters..

Side snide slide:-  Again - AlboCorp (Albanese Corporation) graciously hands out a pay rise to 'the lowest paid, mostly women' - I call BS again on this (and wonder WTF those dopey lying sheilas in the 'gender wage agency' even do for a living):-

Men's AWE = $2228.30 (ABS Feb 2026)

Men's hours worked per week = 38.5

Women's AWE = $1957.45

Women's hours worked per week – 31.7

Simple calculations:-

Men's average HOURLY earnings = 2228.30/38.5

=  $57.88

Women's Average HOURLY earnings = 1957.45/31.7

=  $61.75

Let us go a little further:-

Horror of horrors – women 'only' EARN around 89% of what men EARN.

BUT – they only work 82% of the hours men work!!  So even there they are 7% or so ahead!!!   ::)

“ goods would cost $140, GST ”

There is $14 . If I choose to write it in the same style of News Ltd we will just call it an even $20.

Plus the gst on rent, electricity, insurance, advertising, the new “ work  vehicle  “ , internet, phone, computers etc, etc.


I’ve never met anyone who is paid “ above the award rate” in hospitality. The opposite normally.

The whole article is fiction, nonsense, typical main stream media rubbish.

In Roman numerals it is XXX.

whiteknight wrote on Jun 9^th, 2026 at 6:48am:

So what is the problem?.  You want people to work on weekends and public holidays?.  Then you pay your penalty rates.   :(

My Saturday pay rate is calculated as standard rates times 1.125. My Sunday rates are standard rates times 1.3. I doubt there are any dishwashers out there that deserve $70+ an hour. Those dishes and floors should be spotless at that pay rate.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 3:36am:

whiteknight wrote on Jun 9th, 2026 at 6:48am: So what is the problem?.  You want people to work on weekends and public holidays?.  Then you pay your penalty rates.   :( My Saturday pay rate is calculated as standard rates times 1.125. My Sunday rates are standard rates times 1.3. I doubt there are any dishwashers out there that deserve $70+ an hour. Those dishes and floors should be spotless at that pay rate.

Of course they deserve that sort of money, if they work on a public holiday.

Indeed why not if there are enough people willing to pay $30 for bacon and eggs.

Quote:

Indeed why not if there are enough people willing to pay $30 for bacon and eggs.

There aren't. But there are a lot of people who would take the work for less than $70 an hour, if they were allowed to. The unions won't let them have a job, and are celebrating their unemployment as some great achievement.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 12:03pm:

Quote: Indeed why not if there are enough people willing to pay $30 for bacon and eggs. There aren't. But there are a lot of people who would take the work for less than $70 an hour, if they were allowed to. The unions won't let them have a job, and are celebrating their unemployment as some great achievement.

Nobody is being made unemployed who wasn't already unemployed in your scenario.

If they sack the worker who wants $70 and then hire someone who'll do it for $30, there is no change to the unemployment numbers.

Just a different person will be unemployed.

Quote:

Nobody is being made unemployed who wasn't already unemployed in your scenario.

Ah. I see your logic. It's OK for the unions to deny people the right to have a job, so long as they keep up the good work?


Quote:

If they sack the worker who wants $70 and then hire someone who'll do it for $30, there is no change to the unemployment numbers.

You are confused Greg. Do you think there might actually be more jobs if the cafes only have to pay staff $30 per hour instead of $70?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 12:14pm:

Quote: Nobody is being made unemployed who wasn't already unemployed in your scenario. Ah. I see your logic. It's OK for the unions to deny people the right to have a job, so long as they keep up the good work? [quote]If they sack the worker who wants $70 and then hire someone who'll do it for $30, there is no change to the unemployment numbers.

You are confused Greg. Do you think there might actually be more jobs if the cafes only have to pay staff $30 per hour instead of $70?[/quote]

No, there won't be more jobs.

Not sure where you're getting that idea from.

tallowood wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 10:31am:

Indeed why not if there are enough people willing to pay $30 for bacon and eggs.

I just can’t  :( as I’m a cook-from-scratch domestic chef, I use organic free range eggs, organic butter on toast, signature organic olive oil to cook with, how do I know if even the eggs in a cafe are free range? There’s no mention so therefore they must be cheaper caged chooks eggs.
Recently it shocked me while staying at Mantra in Airlie Beach, their own restaurant offering breakfast eggs etc for $30 each unless we joined a club then it’s $24 each

Well, we walked a couple kms to nearest supermarket and I bought weetbix, milk, and paper bowls so we made our own breakfast.
4 mornings saved $240 just on breakfast alone.
Yes I’m the mathematician domestic chef at that  ;D

For lunch I bought bread, ham, tomato and made sandwiches.
Many of the other lunch, morning and afternoon teas were included as part of travel deal.

Had a nice snitz lunch in Hamilton island included and these pesky blackbirds all over the diners! Geez! The waitress had a bottle of water and kept coming to spray the birds away!

---

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 12:19pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 12:14pm: Quote: Nobody is being made unemployed who wasn't already unemployed in your scenario. Ah. I see your logic. It's OK for the unions to deny people the right to have a job, so long as they keep up the good work? [quote]If they sack the worker who wants $70 and then hire someone who'll do it for $30, there is no change to the unemployment numbers. You are confused Greg. Do you think there might actually be more jobs if the cafes only have to pay staff $30 per hour instead of $70?

No, there won't be more jobs.

Not sure where you're getting that idea from.

[/quote]

It's called economics Greg. Something the unions don't understand. Or pretend not to.

Why wouldn't cafe owners hire more staff on public holidays if they only had to pay $30 per hour? Have you ever had to wait 45 minutes for a burger on a long weekend because they don't have enough staff?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 12:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 12:19pm: freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 12:14pm: Quote: Nobody is being made unemployed who wasn't already unemployed in your scenario. Ah. I see your logic. It's OK for the unions to deny people the right to have a job, so long as they keep up the good work? [quote]If they sack the worker who wants $70 and then hire someone who'll do it for $30, there is no change to the unemployment numbers. You are confused Greg. Do you think there might actually be more jobs if the cafes only have to pay staff $30 per hour instead of $70? No, there won't be more jobs. Not sure where you're getting that idea from.

It's called economics Greg. Something the unions don't understand. Or pretend not to.

Why wouldn't cafe owners hire more staff on public holidays if they only had to pay $30 per hour? Have you ever had to wait 45 minutes for a burger on a long weekend because they don't have enough staff?[/quote]

I'm not sure where you live, but it's not in the real world.

People have been waiting 45 minutes for a burger on long weekends for years, and they'll continue to do so.

The cafe owners know this and that's why they won't employ more workers. They'll pocket the extra $40.

A cafe owner isn't in business to reduce the number of people on the unemployment line, or to reduce their customers' waiting time - they're in business to make money, for themselves.

Their sole reason for opening the doors is to fill their cash registers with more money.

Their business model is simple: employ the least amount of staff to do what's required and then exploit those workers as much as humanly possible.

If a business requires five people in order to make it run well, the owner will employ just four and then exploit those workers a little more.

This is the real world.  This is how capitalism works.

Quote:

People have been waiting 45 minutes for a burger on long weekends for years, and they'll continue to do so. The cafe owners know this and that's why they won't employ more workers. They'll pocket the extra $40.

But people don't. They just keep going and wait till they get home for a feed. Or don't go out for one in the first place. Or get a sausage roll from the servo. And the ones who do suffer the wait do not think the experience was any better for the 45 minutes of their time they lost.

The cafe's lose business because of it. A lot of them will not even open if they have to pay staff $70 per hour, despite the fact that there is plenty of potential business around because of all the other places that are shut.

Everyone loses because of the unions. Customers lose because places are either shut or overcrowded. Potential employees lose because they miss out on the job, and businesses lose because they either remain shut or do not hire as many staff as they would at $30 per hour.

Yours is the sort of magical thinking that the unions like to encourage among those who are gullible enough to give them money.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 1:42pm:

Quote: People have been waiting 45 minutes for a burger on long weekends for years, and they'll continue to do so. The cafe owners know this and that's why they won't employ more workers. They'll pocket the extra $40. But people don't.

Again, I'm not sure where you live but it's not the same as the world I inhabit.

People not only wait, but they'll even queue up to get in.

The Psychology of Waiting

Perceived Quality: In many cases, a long queue naturally signals high quality to consumers, making them more willing to wait.

The "Herd" Instinct: Australian diners are often drawn to bustling venues, as a crowded restaurant implies the food and atmosphere are worth the time invested.

When you pull up somewhere for lunch on your way home after a long weekend, you are not after a 3 course meal. The last thing you want is to add 45 minutes to your trip. The fact that some people wait does not mean that everyone will. If what you claim, or hint at, were true, every cafe would make you wait 45 minutes even if they weren't busy. They don't. Because they are not the morons that the unions take their members for.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 2:09pm:

When you pull up somewhere for lunch on your way home after a long weekend, you are not after a 3 course meal. The last thing you want is to add 45 minutes to your trip. The fact that some people wait does not mean that everyone will.

I agree.

The thing is though, some people do and that's enough to keep the cafe open without having to hire more staff.

Quote:

The thing is though, some people do and that's enough to keep the cafe open without having to hire more staff.

Union-esque magical thinking again. You miss the point entirely. The people that choose not to wait are a lost business opportunity for the cafe owner and a lost employment opportunity for those who miss out on a job. Same with the cafe's that choose not to open because they cannot afford to pay staff $70 per hour. Creating unemployment does not magically become a good idea just because they stop short of grinding the entire country to a halt.

Though it is a boon for the family run cafe's who can make their own children work on public holdays.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 2:47pm:

Quote: The thing is though, some people do and that's enough to keep the cafe open without having to hire more staff. Union-esque magical thinking again. You miss the point entirely. The people that choose not to wait are a lost business opportunity for the cafe owner and a lost employment opportunity for those who miss out on a job.

Nope.

The cafe owner isn't going to employ more people.

There's no job to miss out on.

You're not describing what happens in the real world - you're describing a theory.

Sophia wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 12:21pm:

tallowood wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 10:31am: Indeed why not if there are enough people willing to pay $30 for bacon and eggs. I just can’t  :( as I’m a cook-from-scratch domestic chef, I use organic free range eggs, organic butter on toast, signature organic olive oil to cook with, how do I know if even the eggs in a cafe are free range? There’s no mention so therefore they must be cheaper caged chooks eggs. Recently it shocked me while staying at Mantra in Airlie Beach, their own restaurant offering breakfast eggs etc for $30 each unless we joined a club then it’s $24 each Well, we walked a couple kms to nearest supermarket and I bought weetbix, milk, and paper bowls so we made our own breakfast. 4 mornings saved $240 just on breakfast alone. Yes I’m the mathematician domestic chef at that  ;D For lunch I bought bread, ham, tomato and made sandwiches. Many of the other lunch, morning and afternoon teas were included as part of travel deal. Had a nice snitz lunch in Hamilton island included and these pesky blackbirds all over the diners! Geez! The waitress had a bottle of water and kept coming to spray the birds away!

https://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/CD84AA69-4DE2-44C3-BF41-5B35650466C5.jpeg

If the waitress could make birds to lay eggs while customers wait $70 an hour would be justified.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 3:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 2:47pm: Quote: The thing is though, some people do and that's enough to keep the cafe open without having to hire more staff. Union-esque magical thinking again. You miss the point entirely. The people that choose not to wait are a lost business opportunity for the cafe owner and a lost employment opportunity for those who miss out on a job. Nope. The cafe owner isn't going to employ more people. There's no job to miss out on. You're not describing what happens in the real world - you're describing a theory.

You just admitted that some people will choose not to go the cafe because the wait is too long.

Also, some cafe's will choose not to open - the reason for the long queues in the first place.

How is that anything other than a lost business opportunity, and a lost employment opportunity?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 3:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 3:03pm: freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 2:47pm: Quote: The thing is though, some people do and that's enough to keep the cafe open without having to hire more staff. Union-esque magical thinking again. You miss the point entirely. The people that choose not to wait are a lost business opportunity for the cafe owner and a lost employment opportunity for those who miss out on a job. Nope. The cafe owner isn't going to employ more people. There's no job to miss out on. You're not describing what happens in the real world - you're describing a theory. You just admitted that some people will choose not to go the cafe because the wait is too long. Also, some cafe's will choose not to open - the reason for the long queues in the first place. How is that anything other than a lost business opportunity, and a lost employment opportunity?

It's not causing unemployment.

If the cafe doesn't open, the staff aren't sacked - they just don't work that particular day.

;D

So they aren't unemployed, they just aren't working? Is that what the unions say about all the unemployment they cause?

Who is it that keeps whining about "underemployment"? Wouldn't be the unions by any chance?

Can you understand how increased underemployment would lead to more people getting no work at all? Or is that too many logical steps for a union supporter to follow?

Bring back "Sunday trade laws" ?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 3:28pm:

;D So they aren't unemployed, they just aren't working? Is that what the unions say about all the unemployment they cause?

Again, it's not creating unemployment.

Cafe owners don't spit the dummy and fire everyone the day before a public holiday and then never re-open again.

If the cafe doesn't open on a public holiday (because of penalty rates), the staff aren't sacked - they just don't work that one particular day.

And, even if in some completely unbelievable alternate universe they were sacked, the owner would need to re-employ them, or some other people looking for work, the day after the public holiday.

So, still no additional unemployment.

Who is it that keeps whining about "underemployment"? Wouldn't be the unions by any chance?

Can you understand how increased underemployment would lead to more people getting no work at all? Or is that too many logical steps for a union supporter to follow?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 4:02pm:

Who is it that keeps whining about "underemployment"? Wouldn't be the unions by any chance? Can you understand how increased underemployment would lead to more people getting no work at all? Or is that too many logical steps for a union supporter to follow?

That's complete nonsense.

"Increased underemployment does not automatically mean more people will become completely jobless. In fact, it often means the opposite: employers frequently respond to economic tightening by reducing the hours of their current staff (increasing underemployment) to avoid mass layoffs and keep overall unemployment steady."


"When a business faces reduced demand, it generally has two options: lay off workers (increasing unemployment) or reduce the hours of existing employees (increasing underemployment). Underemployment often acts as a shock absorber, protecting the economy from immediate, massive spikes in total joblessness."

It depends on the cause. If the cause is union action causing cafes to remain shut on the weekend, the increased underemployment that will result will inevitably also cause increased unemployment. It is not employers responding to "economic tightening". The economics is there. The owners want to open up. They have customers wanting to buy from them. They have people willing to work. But the union steps in and shuts it down, on what would otherwise be one of their busiest days. Maybe some cafes even go bankrupt because of it.

Just because you do not care about people losing their jobs is not the same thing as the job losses not being real. The job losses are real. You just don't care about the people it affects.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 4:13pm:

It depends on the cause. If the cause is union action causing cafes to remain shut on the weekend, the increased underemployment that will result will inevitably also cause increased unemployment. It is not employers responding to "economic tightening". The economics is there. The owners want to open up. They have customers wanting to buy from them. They have people willing to work. But the union steps in and shuts it down, on what would otherwise be one of their busiest days. Maybe some cafes even go bankrupt because of it. Just because you do not care about people losing their jobs is not the same thing as the job losses not being real. The job losses are real. You just don't care about the people it affects.

How does the Union shut it down?   :-/

When did anyone here have Bacon And Eggs for $30 last time?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 3:28pm:

;D So they aren't unemployed, they just aren't working? Is that what the unions say about all the unemployment they cause? Who is it that keeps whining about "underemployment"? Wouldn't be the unions by any chance? Can you understand how increased underemployment would lead to more people getting no work at all? Or is that too many logical steps for a union supporter to follow?

Quote:

So they aren't unemployed, they just aren't working?

They are not working on a day that is meant to be a day off. They still work their normal business hours.

I have workd in the hospitalist industy in a place where their was always substantial day long cues on Public holidays. The result is something like $20K above average profit for the day. Yes these businesses can affort to pay their employees the correct rate. The businesses that tend to have problems are the ones that have no customers on a PH, They tend to too stupid to close when there is no eccanomic case for them to be open.

tallowood wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 4:33pm:

When did anyone here have Bacon And Eggs for $30 last time?

I can't even remember the last time I had bacon and eggs.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 4:13pm:

It depends on the cause. If the cause is union action causing cafes to remain shut on the weekend, the increased underemployment that will result will inevitably also cause increased unemployment. It is not employers responding to "economic tightening". The economics is there. The owners want to open up. They have customers wanting to buy from them. They have people willing to work. But the union steps in and shuts it down, on what would otherwise be one of their busiest days. Maybe some cafes even go bankrupt because of it. Just because you do not care about people losing their jobs is not the same thing as the job losses not being real. The job losses are real. You just don't care about the people it affects.

Quote:

If the cause is union action causing cafes to remain shut on the weekend

I suspect this never happened. Sounds about on par with the resturant being closed because of a metior strike.


Quote:

They have customers wanting to buy from them They have people willing to work. the union steps in and shuts it down on what would otherwise be one of their busiest days

No union has the power to shut a business down - This is BS.

The only reason a business would get into trouble would be with the authorities and only if they are breaking the industrial laws.

On the businesses busiest days they make the most profit and can afford to pay the correct pay rates. 

Why not have the government allow tax free wages instead of penalty rates, imagine that. Businesses would boom, employees would be very happy and the economy would surge.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 3:28pm:

So they aren't unemployed, they just aren't working?

Correct.

Not working is the default position on a public holiday.

The clue is the word 'holiday'.

Exactly, the complaint in the article is talking about 8 days a year.

If you don’t believe that you can afford the cost involved don’t open your business.

One of the best seafood restaurants on the north coast of NSW doesn’t open Sunday and it’s not rare for it to close for three or four months during the offseason.


But what would he know about  running a successful hospitality business?

His only had this  successful restaurant for over twenty years!

Leroy wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 6:26pm:

Why not have the government allow tax free wages instead of penalty rates, imagine that. Businesses would boom, employees would be very happy and the economy would surge.

The ultimate solution is the removal of payroll tax.

The worst tax and most unjust tax in Australia history.

Taxing someone because they employed someone!

I understand why it was introduced in war time but not it’s just a evil relic that the government relies on to fund their rorts and logistics failures.

Daves2017 wrote on Jun 9^th, 2026 at 7:15am:

I read the article and the comments and the whole story is fake news Ltd rubbish- “ Wrong… “When making a baseline of 100 coffees an hour at $7 each, so $700 in revenue, wages would swallow $350 of that, goods would cost $140, GST would be $70 and utilities and rent would take $105. So the total profit made on those coffees would be just $35.” ALL businesses get a GST credit. They only pay GST on the difference between what GST they PAID vs what they COLLECTED. The above statement assume they collected 70 and didn’t pay any themselves. Also, if revenue is 700, GST is roughly 63.64. It would be 70 if revenue was 770. Why does this matter, it’s only 7$. Because all the mistakes add up. If profit was 35, now it’s 42. Oh and with the GST credit, it might be 55 PER HOUR. They trade for 8, PROFIT was over 400. That day. Their “worst day” and the boss pockets 400 for doing nothing at all and having the day off himself. Crying poor cause someone else is being paid penalty rates. I get it. There are other costs too. Super, downtime, etc. Can’t imagine 100 coffees per hour is realistic. My point, don’t fudge figures, it sends the credibility of the whole article into question”.

Quote:

Under 18 years old: You only qualify for super if you work more than 30 hours in a single week for that employer.

Most employees are casuals.

30 hrs a week is more than just casual hours.

And how many staff over 18 are these cafes etc. employing?

Not many I'd say.

Daves2017 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2026 at 8:51pm:

Leroy wrote on Jun 10th, 2026 at 6:26pm: Why not have the government allow tax free wages instead of penalty rates, imagine that. Businesses would boom, employees would be very happy and the economy would surge. The ultimate solution is the removal of payroll tax. The worst tax and most unjust tax in Australia history. Taxing someone because they employed someone! I understand why it was introduced in war time but not it’s just a evil relic that the government relies on to fund their rorts and logistics failures.

The problem is that the Govt. wastes the money that they do collect -
we have the highest paid public servants in the world too
and more per capita than any other country -
it's no wonder taxes are so high -
even then they borrow more money on top of it as we slide into further massive debt.
The States too - Daniel Andrews left Victoria bankrupt with over $200 billion in debt.