whufc wrote:Working in rec centres and whilst Job Keeper is helping with our P&L's its killing us at any operational level.
We have primarily a casual staff force. We had staff who were previously working 10 hours a week roughly $250 a week who are now getting $1,500 a fortnight whether they work or not.
Do you think the casual staff are making themselves overly available at the moment or will to pick up shifts etc when in 'their minds' they are working for free.
Yes legally we can terminate them if they refuse to work shifts but legally it's almost impossible to enforce especially being regional where reasons such as 'im in Adelaide', 'im helping out on the family farm' are legitimate regardless of whether we see otherwise on their social media etc.
Like several similar government policies it was well-intended but poorly thought out and implemented too hastily.
I would liken it to Kevin Rudd's $900 GFC payments. Not a bad idea, put some money out on the streets to stimulate spending - even if most of it went on Plasma TVs. But the implementation of it... My missus had gone on maternity leave in the year prior and her earnings fell just under the tax free threshold. Since she paid no net tax in the previous FY she got $0. Myself, I earned a little over the threshold at which the payment reduced. So we got $600 between us. Conversely, my dear old granny copped the full $900 - this despite the fact that she had passed away some months prior!
Now who is most likely to put the $ back into the economy - a couple with two small kids, or a dead person? Similarly the Job Keeper plan is well intentioned but poorly targeted.
whufc wrote:Working in rec centres and whilst Job Keeper is helping with our P&L's its killing us at any operational level.
We have primarily a casual staff force. We had staff who were previously working 10 hours a week roughly $250 a week who are now getting $1,500 a fortnight whether they work or not.
Do you think the casual staff are making themselves overly available at the moment or will to pick up shifts etc when in 'their minds' they are working for free.
Yes legally we can terminate them if they refuse to work shifts but legally it's almost impossible to enforce especially being regional where reasons such as 'im in Adelaide', 'im helping out on the family farm' are legitimate regardless of whether we see otherwise on their social media etc.
Like several similar government policies it was well-intended but poorly thought out and implemented too hastily.
I would liken it to Kevin Rudd's $900 GFC payments. Not a bad idea, put some money out on the streets to stimulate spending - even if most of it went on Plasma TVs. But the implementation of it... My missus had gone on maternity leave in the year prior and her earnings fell just under the tax free threshold. Since she paid no net tax in the previous FY she got $0. Myself, I earned a little over the threshold at which the payment reduced. So we got $600 between us. Conversely, my dear old granny copped the full $900 - this despite the fact that she had passed away some months prior!
Now who is most likely to put the $ back into the economy - a couple with two small kids, or a dead person? Similarly the Job Keeper plan is well intentioned but poorly targeted.
RIP Pseudo's Granny.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
whufc wrote:Working in rec centres and whilst Job Keeper is helping with our P&L's its killing us at any operational level.
We have primarily a casual staff force. We had staff who were previously working 10 hours a week roughly $250 a week who are now getting $1,500 a fortnight whether they work or not.
Do you think the casual staff are making themselves overly available at the moment or will to pick up shifts etc when in 'their minds' they are working for free.
Yes legally we can terminate them if they refuse to work shifts but legally it's almost impossible to enforce especially being regional where reasons such as 'im in Adelaide', 'im helping out on the family farm' are legitimate regardless of whether we see otherwise on their social media etc.
Like several similar government policies it was well-intended but poorly thought out and implemented too hastily.
I would liken it to Kevin Rudd's $900 GFC payments. Not a bad idea, put some money out on the streets to stimulate spending - even if most of it went on Plasma TVs. But the implementation of it... My missus had gone on maternity leave in the year prior and her earnings fell just under the tax free threshold. Since she paid no net tax in the previous FY she got $0. Myself, I earned a little over the threshold at which the payment reduced. So we got $600 between us. Conversely, my dear old granny copped the full $900 - this despite the fact that she had passed away some months prior!
Now who is most likely to put the $ back into the economy - a couple with two small kids, or a dead person? Similarly the Job Keeper plan is well intentioned but poorly targeted.
whufc wrote:Working in rec centres and whilst Job Keeper is helping with our P&L's its killing us at any operational level.
We have primarily a casual staff force. We had staff who were previously working 10 hours a week roughly $250 a week who are now getting $1,500 a fortnight whether they work or not.
Do you think the casual staff are making themselves overly available at the moment or will to pick up shifts etc when in 'their minds' they are working for free.
Yes legally we can terminate them if they refuse to work shifts but legally it's almost impossible to enforce especially being regional where reasons such as 'im in Adelaide', 'im helping out on the family farm' are legitimate regardless of whether we see otherwise on their social media etc.
Like several similar government policies it was well-intended but poorly thought out and implemented too hastily.
I would liken it to Kevin Rudd's $900 GFC payments. Not a bad idea, put some money out on the streets to stimulate spending - even if most of it went on Plasma TVs. But the implementation of it... My missus had gone on maternity leave in the year prior and her earnings fell just under the tax free threshold. Since she paid no net tax in the previous FY she got $0. Myself, I earned a little over the threshold at which the payment reduced. So we got $600 between us. Conversely, my dear old granny copped the full $900 - this despite the fact that she had passed away some months prior!
Now who is most likely to put the $ back into the economy - a couple with two small kids, or a dead person? Similarly the Job Keeper plan is well intentioned but poorly targeted.
Why?
Geezus, where to start?
People who werent earning a cent suddenly got $1500 pf, people making a living working full time suddenly got nothing. Two people doing exactly the same job for exactly the same time could have one get it and the other not dependong on circumstances nothing to do with them. Employers are abusing it, employees are refusing to work. And they couldn't even get within 50 billion dollars when costing it. I could go on for ever but thats the tip of the ice berg. Most amateur effort ever by a governement.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
People who werent earning a cent suddenly got $1500 pf, people making a living working full time suddenly got nothing. Two people doing exactly the same job for exactly the same time could have one get it and the other not dependong on circumstances nothing to do with them. Employers are abusing it, employees are refusing to work. I could go on for ever but thats the tip of the ice berg. Most amateur effort ever by a governement.
That's it in a nutshell, I've seen and heard from both sides of the fence and there is zero consistency.
If an employer wants to piss an employee off they will give them more shifts than they are getting paid for while the ones they want to keep are getting away with minimum shifts and doing the jobs they usually would've done pre-covid.
Some employees are taking the piss too as they will get the same pay regardless, the best intentions went out the window once everyone worked out the loopholes, but the employers hold the cards.
There was a need to do somethng fast rather than do nothing until it was fully worked out, but I agree it should have been introduced as "for now until the situation is clear" and the sorting out of the reality should have been gotten on with sooner.
But once they had announced is as "until the end of September" it would not have worked to back off before September - the opposition would have loved that and made the most of it, even if the end result had in reality had been better!
whufc wrote:Working in rec centres and whilst Job Keeper is helping with our P&L's its killing us at any operational level.
We have primarily a casual staff force. We had staff who were previously working 10 hours a week roughly $250 a week who are now getting $1,500 a fortnight whether they work or not.
Do you think the casual staff are making themselves overly available at the moment or will to pick up shifts etc when in 'their minds' they are working for free.
Yes legally we can terminate them if they refuse to work shifts but legally it's almost impossible to enforce especially being regional where reasons such as 'im in Adelaide', 'im helping out on the family farm' are legitimate regardless of whether we see otherwise on their social media etc.
Like several similar government policies it was well-intended but poorly thought out and implemented too hastily.
I would liken it to Kevin Rudd's $900 GFC payments. Not a bad idea, put some money out on the streets to stimulate spending - even if most of it went on Plasma TVs. But the implementation of it... My missus had gone on maternity leave in the year prior and her earnings fell just under the tax free threshold. Since she paid no net tax in the previous FY she got $0. Myself, I earned a little over the threshold at which the payment reduced. So we got $600 between us. Conversely, my dear old granny copped the full $900 - this despite the fact that she had passed away some months prior!
Now who is most likely to put the $ back into the economy - a couple with two small kids, or a dead person? Similarly the Job Keeper plan is well intentioned but poorly targeted.
Why?
Geezus, where to start?
People who werent earning a cent suddenly got $1500 pf, people making a living working full time suddenly got nothing. Two people doing exactly the same job for exactly the same time could have one get it and the other not dependong on circumstances nothing to do with them. Employers are abusing it, employees are refusing to work. And they couldn't even get within 50 billion dollars when costing it. I could go on for ever but thats the tip of the ice berg. Most amateur effort ever by a governement.
The government had to act quickly and they did. Did they get right? Time will tell but you can’t really blame the government for dodgy employers or employees taking advantage of the situation. The government were on a hiding to nothing either way.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
I can blame the government for implememting a system when two people doing exactly the same jobs in exactly the same situation dont get treated the same way, that has nothing to do with dodgy employers or employees. I dont blame the government for inteoducing something, that was a no brainer. I do blame them for the incompetent mess they made of it. You could have grabbed most people off the street to do a better job, I know I could have easily.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
Wedgie wrote:I can blame the government for implememting a system when two people doing exactly the same jobs in exactly the same situation dont get treated the same way, that has nothing to do with dodgy employers or employees.
If it’s the exact same job in the exact same situation how can it differ? Situation must differ for them to differentiate with the decision?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
Wedgie wrote:I can blame the government for implememting a system when two people doing exactly the same jobs in exactly the same situation dont get treated the same way, that has nothing to do with dodgy employers or employees.
And they'd have been able to reduce the risk of that if they had put in several weeks designing an action that was free from risk of criticism before doing anything at all, but the way I see it something had to be done fast to reduce panic and then fixed later.
As I said above, they should have avoided fixing a date so far ahead for review, but I guess the longer period was more reassuring to the population in an immediate crisis. The Retrospectoscope would be a handy invention.
Talk on the news (not that i believe everything on there) that Victoria could be isolated from the rest of australia for up to 2 years unless they get on top of the COVID 19 situation quickly.
locky801 wrote::shock: Talk on the news (not that i believe everything on there) that Victoria could be isolated from the rest of australia for up to 2 years unless they get on top of the COVID 19 situation quickly.
Build a wall around the Mexicans!
You hope it isn’t true and they get it under control soon but it’s not looking good again today.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
locky801 wrote::shock: Talk on the news (not that i believe everything on there) that Victoria could be isolated from the rest of australia for up to 2 years unless they get on top of the COVID 19 situation quickly.
He was on the Today Show this morning explaining what he meant and the way the media had misquoted him
July 11th 2012....
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
2024 Melbourne Cup Punting Challenge winner knocking off the Pirate King!
People who werent earning a cent suddenly got $1500 pf, people making a living working full time suddenly got nothing. Two people doing exactly the same job for exactly the same time could have one get it and the other not dependong on circumstances nothing to do with them. Employers are abusing it, employees are refusing to work. I could go on for ever but thats the tip of the ice berg. Most amateur effort ever by a governement.
That's it in a nutshell, I've seen and heard from both sides of the fence and there is zero consistency.
If an employer wants to piss an employee off they will give them more shifts than they are getting paid for while the ones they want to keep are getting away with minimum shifts and doing the jobs they usually would've done pre-covid.
Some employees are taking the piss too as they will get the same pay regardless, the best intentions went out the window once everyone worked out the loopholes, but the employers hold the cards.
Yep absolutley. It's definitely a two way street with some employees abusing the system.
The worst part for me is that it is called JobKeepers yet employers have no responsibility to keep those employees employed. A casual employee on JobKeepers can be terminated in the same they could even if they weren't on JobKeepers so its not really increasing job security.
Have also heard of employers now leaving non jobkeeper staff out in the cold and giving as many possible hours to jobkeeper staff. Some of the non job keeper staff missed out by days and weeks from being eligible.
As other have said the flip side is we have over 10 ten staff getting paid over double what they had ever been paid before. Our 3 permenant staff are on at least 30% less than were previously getting.
Sheik Yerbouti wrote:Employer has to top up anything over the $750 according to my accountant.
Are you talking about the $750 per week ($1500 p/fortnight) if an employee earnt it. That is what happening with my wage at the moment. I'm back to full time work and receive my normal payment as I always would. My workplace is reimbursed $1500 per fortnight for that.
Some employers though can be very creative and it wouldn't be hard to ensure you casual staff don't earn over that threshold per week. There is a business down the road from us who is refusing to use the casual staff he has that are not on jobkeepers, so essentially they have lost their jobs.
Talk on the news (not that i believe everything on there) that Victoria could be isolated from the rest of australia for up to 2 years unless they get on top of the COVID 19 situation quickly.
