stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:54pm:

If the collective wisdom of experts (unless biased politically which of course happens) have problems showing clear support for removing penalty rates then I doubt Swag you can do any better other than cherry picking and repeating rhetoric.  But you are free to keep trying brainwash your opinions.

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:42pm:


Coalition Politicians haven't got the intestinal fortitude to talk IR reform after the Unions' very successful anti Workchoices propaganda campaign.  You've only got to look at the ACTU's & Labor's teapot reaction to this discussion by the PC....

Unions and Labor politicians don't qualify as experts? 

The Productivity Commission might just have a little bit of nouse about 'productivity' too? 

The other aspect conveniently ignored by you Truebelievers about the application of penalty rates  

If a business is uncompetitive it will go broke.  If it goes broke it's employees lose their jobs and that pushes up unemployment.    Another reason Penalty Rates cause unemployment. (So refute that!!!)

The economic environment has changed enormously since penalty rates were introduced into IR.  Some local businesses have to compete globally against countries that don't have all the industrial relations bells and whistles and / or overheads.  Are you blind to the fact that Australia has justabout no manufacturing industry these days?  That's another elephant in the room that our highly regulated industrial relations, championed by the Unions and Labor, is hamstringing business and yes, causing widespread unemployment. 

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:25pm:


To workers facing the prospect of a tens of thousands of dollars in pay cuts it is.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

What we see is in no way reform, any reasonable reform would need some balance but instead what we see is recommendation after recommendation that takes away from employees and gives to employers.

It is almost all justified with BS and unsupported theory which is known to be untrue in practice.

Productivity gained the lazy way by taking away from employees instead of better production more efficient processes and producing better product should never be the main focus let alone what we see here as being the only option.

We have a lazy government and lazy sneaky dishonest business sector looking for the easy way out.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am:


Falling off of a cliff is not good for your health and just as relevant as your comment.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:36am:


I'm going to extrapolate and suggest from Swag's view is to cut wages down to say $2 a day and that way everyone is employed.  Yah!! 

I've been generous to recognise Swag's view, but I doubt from diehard libs I get that from him.

If workers get paid less, they spend less.  That does not require proof surely.

However, the assumption that lowering penalty rates causes more employment - perhaps but I question exactly what % of saved wages goes into employing more people, especially the unemployed.  It has to be a decent amount to be of real economic benefit - if we did cut penalty rates and all that did was enable say net drop of wages paid (that is, total income of wages paid to everyone, since businesses didn't use the savings to employ more) then that should lead to a net drop in spending.  Ok perhaps instead of keeping the savings, businesses will reduce prices.  It is complex and not simplistic, Swag.  You should admit that.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 9:07am:


Penalty rates do not relate to new jobs or job losses which makes your statement the equivalent to falling off a cliff. It is not relevant.