Wedgie wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Pseudo wrote: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?
1. People who werent earning a cent suddenly got $1500 pf, people making a living working full time suddenly got nothing.
2. 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.
3. Employers are abusing it, employees are refusing to work.
4. 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.
1. Not sure how you get it when you weren't earning a cent. Unless you were employed but not paid. People making a living working full time suddenly got nothing? Do you mean self employed? There was criteria. No payment if your revenue hasn't dropped by 30%(?) Big listed companies like mine dont get it.
2. Do you mean they dont get it because they haven't been employed for 12 months?
3. Employers will eventually be caught by one of the most efficient and aggressive tax offices in the world. Employees aren't required to work to get it.
The idea is that they would have been laid off and sitting on the dole anyway (doing the same thing)
4. Actually that was Treasury's fault and they admitted it.
