Covid $750 payment for casual workers or those not covered by sick leave.
Corndoggy said
06:23 PM Jul 18, 2022
Why is it that taxpayers are footing the bill for those not covered for a minimum amount of sick pay of workers, say 8 days per year. These days do not have to be accumulative, if not used there gone each year. If used you only get the 8. The rate of pay can be adjusted to help cover these days, pays for casuals are generally higher to compensate for not getting them. Workers know they don't get them and their wage is higher for that reason. The price of your coffee and muffin can go up 50c to help. It could be legislated that all workers are entitled to x days of sick leave becoming a cost for every business to cover workers. Some businesses can't afford it, Bull. Every worker has to be covered, every employer ha to supply it, every business needs to adjust the costs to cover it. A coffee shop with 5 being covered with sick leave will have the same costs as every other coffee shop with 5 being covered for the cost of the cover. Adjust the figures to cover it. So every coffee and muffin goes up 50c at every coffee shop. Every job I've ever had the boss had to include the costs of sick pay in running that business. Worked out better for them in the long run. But every boss new it had to be covered. Bosses saved themselves around 100, 200 and 700 hrs of unpaid sick leave with me. A fellow worker saved them 1000 hours, another 300 hours. Sure some used evey hour up before they left, 1 of my bosses left twice and used every hour up both times. But that money had been covered by the employer over those years.
What we have here is the Australian tax payers forking out for what will be mainly private businesses, costs that these businesses should be covering themselves. What next. Will we be paying for holiday pay for these same businesses that don't give the same employees them. Mind you, some of those that received this money would have got more than they would have made in their time off. Can just hear it now. "Covid, not that bad. I made money from it. Money for jam."
Ivan 01 said
06:39 PM Jul 18, 2022
I understand your concern.
Unfortunately it was a rort for some when it was brought in when Covid first came to our shores and it will be a rort again now.
I know of some who thought the $750 was a good deal and were happy to stay home. It is worse now because all they are doing to confirm illness is show a RAT test.
Unfortunately good people are always dragged to the lowest common denominator when it involves deals between employers and employees and even worse when a govt or a Union is involved.
dabbler said
08:37 PM Jul 18, 2022
Employment is changing and it's not the traditional situation most of us encountered throughout our working lives. Casual employment has been on the rise for some time now and the proportion of full-time casuals is dropping (the gig economy is growing even faster). COVID changed that as casuals lost work opportunities. Prior to 2019 approx 25% of positions were casual, now it's down to 20% with no corresponding increase in permanent employment. It's incorrect to assume people choose casual employment with higher pay rates but fewer benefits over permanent positions with higher security and better benefits. Essentially many of today's employed, often skilled workers, are forced to accept several casual positions because full-time employment just isn't available. These people are taxpayers but their ability to earn has been severely affected and If that means they need other advantages, so be it.
Corndoggy said
11:41 PM Jul 18, 2022
Next on the list is casuals will be going for sick pay if the have an hospital procedure that stops them from working. Maybe they could be suffering from mental issues and need time off. Lets go with maternity leave. Add into the list grievement leave. The list could go on. All be paid by the taxpayer. Certainly not covered under any employer employing casuals. Never happen you say. Well I never thought taxpayers would be paying a private companies worker payment for be sick.
Then comes what happens with those that suffer from, real or put on, servere long covid and cannot work. They might not cope with working, even being casual. They going to be covered by the tax payers under a covid scheme, go onto a disability type scheme or go onto an unemployable type scheme or will there be a tough luck scheme. Didn't hear it to well be someone on the news on the TV was commenting on exactly this. More to come later.
-- Edited by Corndoggy on Tuesday 19th of July 2022 10:51:13 AM
Gundog said
01:28 PM Jul 19, 2022
In my days as an employer at one period all employees were casual, casual employees were paid 30% above the hourly rate to compensate them for not having sick leave or annual holidays.
When the companies dynamics changed we offered all casual either permanent part time or in some cases full time positions approximatly 30% took up the offer, but most were not interested because of the higher pay rate.
Then why the f**k shuld the tax paryer pay them
dabbler said
02:29 PM Jul 19, 2022
Things have changed. Casual vs permanent isn't given as a choice and increasingly it's casual or nothing. These casuals are still taxpayers and if they really are earning more, they're paying more tax. There are also contract positions that are effectively full-time permanent positions and these contracts don't include sick leave, holidays or overtime rates. They are also taxpayers.
Gundog said
02:53 PM Jul 19, 2022
dabbler wrote:
Things have changed. Casual vs permanent isn't given as a choice and increasingly it's casual or nothing. These casuals are still taxpayers and if they really are earning more, they're paying more tax. There are also contract positions that are effectively full-time permanent positions and these contracts don't include sick leave, holidays or overtime rates. They are also taxpayers.
A casual working on $30 per hour working 10 hours a week will pay no tax, if the person works another 5 hours per week, they would pay $17 tax.
a casual employee effectivily gets more money for having covid than when working.
dabbler said
03:16 PM Jul 19, 2022
Do some research and you might start to understand the real world. There are millions of people working as casuals in Australia and hundreds of thousands of people who have several casual and permanent jobs just to make ends meet. You encounter them every day in the service economy.. They definitely pay tax but even if they don't that isn't a reason to abandon them.
yobarr said
03:40 PM Jul 19, 2022
Gundog wrote:
dabbler wrote:
Things have changed. Casual vs permanent isn't given as a choice and increasingly it's casual or nothing. These casuals are still taxpayers and if they really are earning more, they're paying more tax. There are also contract positions that are effectively full-time permanent positions and these contracts don't include sick leave, holidays or overtime rates. They are also taxpayers.
A casual working on $30 per hour working 10 hours a week will pay no tax, if the person works another 5 hours per week, they would pay $17 tax.
a casual employee effectivily gets more money for having covid than when working.
Exactly right Graham. When I lived in NSW late 2020 there were people left,nright and centre throwing their jobs in because they had more income doing absolutely nothing. Means tests don't work either because many people will lie through their teeth if they think there's a dollar in it. Cheers
Why is it that taxpayers are footing the bill for those not covered for a minimum amount of sick pay of workers, say 8 days per year. These days do not have to be accumulative, if not used there gone each year. If used you only get the 8. The rate of pay can be adjusted to help cover these days, pays for casuals are generally higher to compensate for not getting them. Workers know they don't get them and their wage is higher for that reason. The price of your coffee and muffin can go up 50c to help. It could be legislated that all workers are entitled to x days of sick leave becoming a cost for every business to cover workers. Some businesses can't afford it, Bull. Every worker has to be covered, every employer ha to supply it, every business needs to adjust the costs to cover it. A coffee shop with 5 being covered with sick leave will have the same costs as every other coffee shop with 5 being covered for the cost of the cover. Adjust the figures to cover it. So every coffee and muffin goes up 50c at every coffee shop. Every job I've ever had the boss had to include the costs of sick pay in running that business. Worked out better for them in the long run. But every boss new it had to be covered. Bosses saved themselves around 100, 200 and 700 hrs of unpaid sick leave with me. A fellow worker saved them 1000 hours, another 300 hours. Sure some used evey hour up before they left, 1 of my bosses left twice and used every hour up both times. But that money had been covered by the employer over those years.
What we have here is the Australian tax payers forking out for what will be mainly private businesses, costs that these businesses should be covering themselves. What next. Will we be paying for holiday pay for these same businesses that don't give the same employees them. Mind you, some of those that received this money would have got more than they would have made in their time off. Can just hear it now. "Covid, not that bad. I made money from it. Money for jam."
Unfortunately it was a rort for some when it was brought in when Covid first came to our shores and it will be a rort again now.
I know of some who thought the $750 was a good deal and were happy to stay home. It is worse now because all they are doing to confirm illness is show a RAT test.
Unfortunately good people are always dragged to the lowest common denominator when it involves deals between employers and employees and even worse when a govt or a Union is involved.
Next on the list is casuals will be going for sick pay if the have an hospital procedure that stops them from working. Maybe they could be suffering from mental issues and need time off. Lets go with maternity leave. Add into the list grievement leave. The list could go on. All be paid by the taxpayer. Certainly not covered under any employer employing casuals. Never happen you say. Well I never thought taxpayers would be paying a private companies worker payment for be sick.
Then comes what happens with those that suffer from, real or put on, servere long covid and cannot work. They might not cope with working, even being casual. They going to be covered by the tax payers under a covid scheme, go onto a disability type scheme or go onto an unemployable type scheme or will there be a tough luck scheme. Didn't hear it to well be someone on the news on the TV was commenting on exactly this. More to come later.
-- Edited by Corndoggy on Tuesday 19th of July 2022 10:51:13 AM
In my days as an employer at one period all employees were casual, casual employees were paid 30% above the hourly rate to compensate them for not having sick leave or annual holidays.
When the companies dynamics changed we offered all casual either permanent part time or in some cases full time positions approximatly 30% took up the offer, but most were not interested because of the higher pay rate.
Then why the f**k shuld the tax paryer pay them
A casual working on $30 per hour working 10 hours a week will pay no tax, if the person works another 5 hours per week, they would pay $17 tax.
a casual employee effectivily gets more money for having covid than when working.
Exactly right Graham. When I lived in NSW late 2020 there were people left,nright and centre throwing their jobs in because they had more income doing absolutely nothing. Means tests don't work either because many people will lie through their teeth if they think there's a dollar in it. Cheers