PDA

View Full Version : Pay Free Day For Employers?



Basil
03-05-2009, 10:22 PM
Monday 4 May is Labor Day in Queensland. I believe the idea is that employees celebrate their struggle against employers - and of course they get paid for it, by *ahem* the employers.

If this is all kosher (and of course it isn't - it's a crock, but hey let's not go down that path), let's lock it in just for shits and giggles coz there's nothing I can do about it), let's ALSO have a reciprocal Pay Free Day.

-- 9 out 10 small businesses will fail.
-- During their living years, employers will inject their own cash into the business which they will lose.
-- Many of those employers will be screwed by the employees (the same human nature that allows some employees to screw their employers); and yes the same employees getting paid for the day off today! :eek:
-- During the business living years, many employers will pay themselves less than the correctly paid employees (who also being paid today for the day off by the employers who will eventually lose the lot!).

TheJoker
03-05-2009, 10:34 PM
-- 9 out 10 small businesses will fail.
.

Urban Myth: Small Business Failures (http://www.ewowebsites.com/articles/46/1/Small-Business-Failures-Australias-Most-Deadly-Business-Myth/Page1.html)


The following quote comes from the website of the NSW Dept of State and Regional Development. We have checked out websites of other State departments and they show the same statistics.

"Despite what is commonly thought, relatively few small businesses fail. Over the 2 year period 1994-95 and 1995-96, an average of 23 200 small businesses or 6.1% ceased operating in Australia. Less than 10% of these closures were due to bankruptcy proceedings (in the case of unincorporated businesses) or companies being liquidated. The other businesses closed down for reasons such as the owner retiring, seeking a different lifestyle or dying.

The failure of Australian businesses fell significantly during the 1990's. It is estimated in 1999-2000, there were 3.6 failures per 1000 enterprises."

Basil
03-05-2009, 10:43 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Look, let's not turn this into another thread where I end up slamming you pointy-headed, lily whites for not haveing a clue - it's really, really, really tiring.

This text appears to say that it is counting failures within two years of start up? Why does it pick two years??? :wall:

Its closing para (which you bold) sites a % of closures per 1,000 enterprises in a single year. WTF?

TheJoker
03-05-2009, 10:55 PM
This text appears to say that it is counting failures within two years of start up? Why does it pick two years??? :wall:

Well you need a time frame I am sure there are stat available for 5 and 10 years as well. What's the time frame for the 9 out of 10 figure 10 years or 100 years? Or is it 9/10 small business that fail do so due to poor planning and management


Its closing para (which you bold) sites a % of closures per 1,000 enterprises in a single year. WTF?

Its 3.6 out of 1,000 or 0.36%.

Rincewind
03-05-2009, 11:01 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Look, let's not turn this into another thread where I end up slamming you pointy-headed, lily whites for not haveing a clue - it's really, really, really tiring.

This text appears to say that it is counting failures within two years of start up? Why does it pick two years??? :wall:

Its closing para (which you bold) sites a % of closures per 1,000 enterprises in a single year. WTF?

Do you have any evidence to support you 9 out of 10 assertion? Or perhaps some parameters to clarify what you mean by it?

The following story seems to play down the SME failure risk...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22532178-17164,00.html

ER
03-05-2009, 11:09 PM
During a Treasurer's press conference when GST was announced , I asked why the moneys are given to State Govts and not to the small business support!
"Well I might suggest that such a move would defeat the scheme's purpose" said someone, while most of my colleagues and officials kept on looking at eachother, till the next question got in. I received quite a few "interesting question!" like comments after it was over and that was it!
However, and takinng Howie's suggestion very seriously, I bring the matter back here and raise the question to you "why the GST revenue is given to State Govts and not to the small business support!
That would establish guarantee for their continuation, longer and more stable employment for their staff, as well as a breather of respite for our small businessmen and women who are at present suffering nightmares of uncertainty during the unstable times we all live through!
After all GST generated revenue comes from SB taxes as well dosn't it?

Basil
03-05-2009, 11:31 PM
Do you have any evidence to support you 9 out of 10 assertion?
No! The comment in the original wasn't intended to be presented as factual data as none exists. I'm happy to revise the figure downward, but certainly not to the level presented by the clown in the first citation (the editorial, not The Joker).


The following story seems to play down the SME failure risk...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22532178-17164,00.html
Great piece. Thanks. It could be discerned that a number of businesses cease to trade as a precursor to to failure - it's a fine line, and if true, certainly disguises true failure rates. Full of semantics and as I believe the piece suggests, empirical data is not available.

So that I can revert to the purpose of the thread, I'm going to settle (for want of doing any research myself :lol:) on an extract from Barry's citation and adjust one of the premises for the Pay Free Day for employers to

-- Over 50% of businesses fail

for this, I rely on

"Contrary to common perceptions, most Australian businesses survive for a considerable time," the paper says. "For example, around two-thirds of businesses are still operating after five years and almost half are still operating after 10 years."

Rincewind
04-05-2009, 12:00 AM
Regardless of the semantics of the cease to trade / fail the figures seem to point to an exaggeration in the perception of SME failure rates and the first post echoed a common misconception.

Moving on from this I am a little confused as to the main point of the whinge.

Is it a belief that Australian workers receive too many public holidays? (Australians enjoy 10-12 public holidays per year which is pretty standard and certain not leading the way internationally).

Or is it that the May public holiday in Queensland is meant to celebrate a left wing ideal which you believe inappropriate for inclusion in the calendar of public holidays?

Basil
04-05-2009, 06:37 AM
... I am a little confused as to the main point...
Neither of your two choices is accurate as the point of the thread, although incidentally I hold the second (and did when I was an employee - what a laugh eh?). The question being asked in the thread is Should there be a mandatory Pay Free Day?

There is a day where employees are paid (by the employer! - enforced!) NOT to work for the purpose of acknowledging/ marking the difficulties/ struggles of employees.

I'd like to hear people's objections to a day where employees work for FREE for the purpose of acknowledging/ marking the difficulties/ struggles of employers.

pappubahry
04-05-2009, 09:40 AM
I'd like to hear people's objections to a day where employees work for FREE for the purpose of acknowledging/ marking the difficulties/ struggles of employers.
:lol: For a few years France had a compulsory work-for-free day (Pentecost Monday; it has since returned to being a public holiday), though the purpose wasn't to be nice to employers but rather to fund government initiatives to help elderly people.

Of course the unions responded by striking. :lol:

Basil
04-05-2009, 11:15 AM
Of course the unions responded by striking. :lol:
Indeed. And of course if this fantasy of mine got up, the sickie rate would be through the roof. However, if any employer failed to pay the enforced holiday to celebrate all the struggles of being an employee, then it's court time.

Desmond
04-05-2009, 02:21 PM
No! The comment in the original wasn't intended to be presented as factual data as none exists. I'm happy to revise the figure downward, but certainly not to the level presented by the clown in the first citation (the editorial, not The Joker).


Great piece. Thanks. It could be discerned that a number of businesses cease to trade as a precursor to to failure - it's a fine line, and if true, certainly disguises true failure rates. Full of semantics and as I believe the piece suggests, empirical data is not available.

So that I can revert to the purpose of the thread, I'm going to settle (for want of doing any research myself :lol:) on an extract from Barry's citation and adjust one of the premises for the Pay Free Day for employers to

-- Over 50% of businesses fail

for this, I rely onI wonder how many of those fledgling companies had any employees at all.

Basil
04-05-2009, 02:26 PM
I wonder how many of those fledgling companies had any employees at all.
There would be many of those businesses which didn't have employees. There would also be many people being paid to do nothing today by employers who get nothing but a dream run from those same employers.

As you and I have found out before, I think it's best not to look for example and counter example. Is the idea of of a Pay Free Day as presented good enough on its merits?

Hypothetically of course :wall:

Desmond
04-05-2009, 02:40 PM
There would be many of those businesses which didn't have employees. There would also be many people being paid to do nothing today by employers who get nothing but a dream run from those same employers.

As you and I have found out before, I think it's best not to look for example and counter example. Is the idea of of a Pay Free Day as presented good enough on its merits?

Hypothetically of course :wall:On the merits as presented here, no.

I don't really care about Labour Day, would be just as happy if it were abolished. I would prefer that to having some pay-free day as a counter-balance.

Basil
04-05-2009, 02:45 PM
On the merits as presented here, no.

I don't really care about Labour Day, would be just as happy if it were abolished. I would prefer that to having some pay-free day as a counter-balance.

As it happens I am not in favour either of pay Free Day either, but possibly for different reasons. I was hoping to hear argument from lefties as to why not :lol:

Now about this abolition of Labour Day! Yeah right :wall:

Rincewind
04-05-2009, 03:11 PM
Neither of your two choices is accurate as the point of the thread, although incidentally I hold the second (and did when I was an employee - what a laugh eh?). The question being asked in the thread is Should there be a mandatory Pay Free Day?

There is a day where employees are paid (by the employer! - enforced!) NOT to work for the purpose of acknowledging/ marking the difficulties/ struggles of employees.

I'd like to hear people's objections to a day where employees work for FREE for the purpose of acknowledging/ marking the difficulties/ struggles of employers.

I don't believe the idea really has any merit for a number of reason not least of which are the practicalities which you and others have already mentioned.

While we are mentioning comparisons between employers and employees which is really the thrust of this thread. How many employees "fail" in the first 10 years?

Comparing around 50% of SMEs ceasing to trade over 10 years as equivalent to 50% of employees leaving or forced to leave employment in 10 years. Perhaps just a poll to determine the percentage of people who have been working for the same company over the last 10 years.

I've have 5 main employers in my life and got up to 10 year with the one employer (not the current one).


However the real point of Labour day is the improvement of conditions across the board for employees compared with those of 100 years ago or so. During the industrial revolution life was not highly regarded and employees worked long hours in very dangerous conditions and many of those conditions were changed not because of kindhearted mill owners, but by the struggle of employees and union movements. Many employees stood up to very hard conditions, threats of physical violence and in some cases activists lost their lives to continue the struggle. Our present "enlightened" society does owe a lot to the sacrifice of these individuals.

A public holiday to remember their sacrifice and celebrate their legacy seems entirely appropriate.

TheJoker
04-05-2009, 03:47 PM
This Pay Free Day sounds like a Government initiative to me. :lol:

Double up the bureaucracy to administer two special days, that effectively cancel each other out.

Then there is the cost of updates to payroll system and processes. Increases in sick leave (as Gunner pointed out). If it were strictly enforced that everyone show up, the costs of enforcement/litigation.

It's such a wonderful idea I am surprised nobody has come up with it before :lol:

I am assuming that Gunner mentioned it as a tongue-in-cheek idea.

on a more serious note you either cancel the labour day public holiday or you don't. No point in wasting resources by offseting with a "anti-holiday"

Basil
04-05-2009, 04:05 PM
This Pay Free Day sounds like a Government initiative to me. :lol:

Double up the bureaucracy to administer two special days, that effectively cancel each other out.
Yes.


Then there is the cost of updates to payroll system and processes. Increases in sick leave (as Gunner pointed out). If it were strictly enforced that everyone show up, the costs of enforcement/litigation.
Yes.


I am assuming that Gunner mentioned it as a tongue-in-cheek idea.
Not tongue in cheek. More to provoke and elicit various things including synapse activity.


on a more serious note you either cancel the labour day public holiday or you don't. No point in wasting resources by offseting with a "anti-holiday"
Exactly. But the celebration of the struggle must occur for the werkas (a la Baz), why not the celebration of the struggle for the have-a-gos who fall over trying in a heap in alarming numbers?

Rincewind
04-05-2009, 04:45 PM
Exactly. But the celebration of the struggle must occur for the werkas (a la Baz), why not the celebration of the struggle for the have-a-gos who fall over trying in a heap in alarming numbers?

Why? Why not?

The question is one of moving the status quo. When you sign up an employee you know up front you will be paying for 4 weeks annual leave and ~10 public holidays. Regardless whether those public holidays are for war vets, religious observance or to celebrate the 8 hour day, they are the rules of engagement.

Surely you have something better to whinge about than a random public holiday. How about making non-Christians work Christmas and Easter? Or pacifists work on ANZAC day? At this rate I won't be getting any days off.

TheJoker
04-05-2009, 05:18 PM
why not the celebration of the struggle for the have-a-gos who fall over trying in a heap in alarming numbers?

Failure doesn't sound like the sort of thing you celebrate to me, but maybe I am just a bit too old fashioned. ;)

Basil
04-05-2009, 06:08 PM
The question is one of moving the status quo.
No. The question has been very clearly stated despite your being variously confused and stating it as otherwise. However, the question that you have erroneously averred above may well be the topic of a future thread.


Surely you have something better to whinge about than a random public holiday.
No one's whingeing. Had you been paying attention you would have read that I am NOT in favour of the proposed holiday of this thread. Both paying attention to my position and retaining the question at hand has not been your strong suit in this thread.

Rincewind
04-05-2009, 06:41 PM
No. The question has been very clearly stated despite your being variously confused and stating it as otherwise. However, the question that you have erroneously averred above may well be the topic of a future thread.

The title of the thread proposes a pay free day for employers? As fair as I know this would be a change to the status quo. Do you disagree?


No one's whingeing.

No? Please explain the following "asides". (Not whinges as Gunner doesn't whinge).


If this is all kosher (and of course it isn't - it's a crock, but hey let's not go down that path), let's lock it in just for shits and giggles coz there's nothing I can do about it), let's ALSO have a reciprocal Pay Free Day.

Where I have added emphasis to highlight your present level of dissatisfaction with the status quo and feeling of disenfranchisement. Your other posts in this thread are also filled with little whingey asides which are not worth listing again as I believe I have made my point.


Had you been paying attention you would have read that I am NOT in favour of the proposed holiday of this thread. Both paying attention to my position and retaining the question at hand has not been your strong suit in this thread.

More like my investigation as to your basic assumptions and position on the real issues on this thread has lead to some minor annoyance and embarrassment which you have tried to obfuscate by claiming I was off topic.

So in simple terms I have questioned the validity of your number 1 premise

"9 out of 10 small businesses fail"

They certainly don't in anything like the start up period and the stat. is something like 50% cease operations sometime in the first 10 years.

My other main angle is to question your poorly stated argument that somehow a Work For Free Day is only fair to balance the present state of there being a Labour Day.

Now balancing the 50% cease trading state for SMEs with the number of employees who cease an occupation in the first 10 years of an employment position I would suspect that small businesses are not particularly doing it any tougher than employees in general.

It would seem the "doing it tough" angle is the main thrust of the rationale behind the Work For Free Day you propose but at present there has been no compelling evidence to suggest such a day "should" be introduced.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that the Labour Day holiday is not to recognise that employees are particularly doing it tough at present, quite the opposite. It is to recognise that they are doing much better than they were say 100-150 years ago when unions were illegal and union organisers were being sentenced to prison and deportation or being killed by "union breakers". I strongly suspect it is your insensitivity to this point of history that is the primary reason you proposed such a silly idea in the first place.

Basil
04-05-2009, 08:29 PM
Barry, I have often called you one of the most disingenuous posters on the bulletin board - this is another classic example.

My short post at #21 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=240156&postcount=21) caught you out - twice.
Once when I corrected (again) your attempt to suggest that this thread was really about banishing Labour Day, and second when you wanted to make this thread primarily about my whingeing about Labour Day.

What you came back with with was a slew of innuendo, assumptions and suggestions of things that weren't at all established, had no truth to them and entirely had the effect of neutralising your two primary errors pointed out at post #21.

So, teediously (which serves your purpose very well), in response to your haymaking post #22

#1

The question (of this thread) has been very clearly stated despite your being variously confused and (erroneously) stating it as otherwise.
The title of the thread proposes a pay free day for employers? As fair as I know this would be a change to the status quo. Do you disagree?

It is very clear when you asserted at #19 that "The question is one of moving the status quo" you clearly meant that this thread was really about killing Labour Day. Your attempt now to suggest that what you meant was exactly the title of the thread is one of the ugliest wriggles I have seen on this board.

#2

Surely you have something better to whinge about than a random public holiday.

No one's whingeing. Had you been paying attention you would have read that I am NOT in favour of the proposed holiday of this thread.
This is the dialogue as it occurred. You had clearly been caught out and so you snip a small part of the quote and then select text to completely misrepresent my position giving the appearance that I'm complaining about a public holiday in this thread (which I have specifically said is NOT the issue) and conveniently fudging your having been caught out.

#3
You have suggested that you have "investigated" :lol: the validity of my premise (of the 9 out of 10 claim). You presented a piece from The Australian which I thought was a very good one and I said so, with thanks. Nothing you have said, nor found in the piece refutes that 9 out 10 businesses fail. I still believe they do. But for the sake of argument and the thread, I was readily happy to reword the premise to greater than 50% fail - still a staggering figure! And you have the hide to turn this clearly amicable dialogue and progression to suggest that


More like my investigation as to your basic assumptions and position on the real issues on this thread has lead to some minor annoyance and embarrassment Entirely baseless and untrue. And I might say really ugly self-serving stuff that wipes so much respect you might otherwise garner on this board.

#4

Furthermore, it should be remembered that the Labour Day holiday is not to recognise that employees are particularly doing it tough at present, quite the opposite. It is to recognise that they are doing much better than they were say 100-150 years ago when unions were illegal and union organisers were being sentenced to prison and deportation or being killed by "union breakers".
Your last sentence stating my insensitivity to this point is completely false. Another haymaker tossed in and presented as fact as part of your riposte to being caught out so obviously a couple of posts ago. There has been no discussion on the matter whatsoever. I happen to agree with your history and that is why I am (and always have been) in favour of unions.


I strongly suspect it is your insensitivity to this point of history that is the primary reason you proposed such a silly idea in the first place.
You strongly suspect wrong. I have not proposed such an idea - I have proposed discussion about it and I stated at an early opportunity in this thread that I was against 'Pay Free day For Employers'. You know this of course, but will stop at end of wriggling and character questioning if that is what it takes to save face in your having been caugh tout.

Barry, these disingenuous and escalated blankets that you specialise in throwing over a topic are certainly the ugliest part of your on board character and have been for a long time.

Rincewind
04-05-2009, 10:17 PM
The intro of your post was pretty senseless drivel and I am ignoring that. On to the meat of your baseless accusations...


#1
It is very clear when you asserted at #19 that "The question is one of moving the status quo" you clearly meant that this thread was really about killing Labour Day. Your attempt now to suggest that what you meant was exactly the title of the thread is one of the ugliest wriggles I have seen on this board.

Hardly, it is just a statement of fact. Either abolishing Labour Day (the existence of which was the origin of this whiney thread) or the introduction of your proposed reciprocal Pay Free Day for Employers constitutes a change to the status quo of the employment contract.

I ask you again, do you disagree?


#2

This is the dialogue as it occurred. You had clearly been caught out and so you snip a small part of the quote and then select text to completely misrepresent my position giving the appearance that I'm complaining about a public holiday in this thread (which I have specifically said is NOT the issue) and conveniently fudging your having been caught out.

You are trying to say that is not the issue because you do not want the spotlight put onto the whingey angle. But going back to the wording, innuendo and subtext of the first post (and repeated is subsequent posts) you clearly resent the existence of Labour Day, feel it is unjust and feel powerless to change the outrageous state of affairs where employers have to fund a day off for their employees to celebrate the struggle against employers. (My paraphrasing).

Whether you want that to be the subject of discussion or not is beside the point when you make several snide asides as you have throughout this thread. You opened the door with the remarks are commentary on your motivation is not out of place.


#3
You have suggested that you have "investigated" :lol: the validity of my premise (of the 9 out of 10 claim). You presented a piece from The Australian which I thought was a very good one and I said so, with thanks. Nothing you have said, nor found in the piece refutes that 9 out 10 businesses fail. I still believe they do. But for the sake of argument and the thread, I was readily happy to reword the premise to greater than 50% fail - still a staggering figure! And you have the hide to turn this clearly amicable dialogue and progression to suggest that

I was using the word investigate in the sense of examining more closely as though questioning you clarify your assertion as I did in post #5. In the first post you stated something as your first assumption which has shown to be a common misunderstanding. A little research before hand would have saved you this embarrassment.

By the way open ended statements like "greater than 50%" are inherently imprecise and thus misleading. It is more accurate to say "just over 50% of SMEs cease trading inside their first 10 years". To equate cease trading with failure is not defensible.

The angle of comparing this to employees who cease employment within the first ten years of taking an employment position is one worth investigating more fully if you feel like doing some research for a change.


Entirely baseless and untrue. And I might say really ugly self-serving stuff that wipes so much respect you might otherwise garner on this board.

I don't know about that, you sound a tad annoyed to me.


#4

Your last sentence stating my insensitivity to this point is completely false. Another haymaker tossed in and presented as fact as part of your riposte to being caught out so obviously a couple of posts ago. There has been no discussion on the matter whatsoever. I happen to agree with your history and that is why I am (and always have been) in favour of unions.

That is good to hear it however your post number one seemed to be totally ignorant of the intention of Labour Day.


You strongly suspect wrong. I have not proposed such an idea - I have proposed discussion about it and I stated at an early opportunity in this thread that I was against 'Pay Free day For Employers'. You know this of course, but will stop at end of wriggling and character questioning if that is what it takes to save face in your having been caugh tout.

You did propose the idea in your own words...


let's ALSO have a reciprocal Pay Free Day.

Sounds like a proposal to me.

Regarding your "early" statement of being against the idea, there was an even earlier opportunity when you could have stated you being against your own idea, in post #1.

So, anyway, if you have changed your mind and are no longer proposing a Pay Free Day I can't any point in continuing with the thread except as a place for you to engage in further target practice on your feet. :lol:

pax
10-05-2009, 02:36 AM
Now about this abolition of Labour Day! Yeah right :wall:

The fact is that most people couldn't give a rat's for Labour Day. It's just another public holiday. Cancel it and replace it with "celebrate employers day", and most people wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Rincewind
10-05-2009, 10:35 AM
The fact is that most people couldn't give a rat's for Labour Day. It's just another public holiday. Cancel it and replace it with "celebrate employers day", and most people wouldn't bat an eyelid.

I don't think that is what Gunner had in mind in post #1.

pax
11-05-2009, 11:16 AM
I don't think that is what Gunner had in mind in post #1.

No. It isn't.