Printable View
There can be two reasons for the increase in casual employment. One is a lack of business confidence. The other is that casuals are cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Our casuals despite their loading, earn less than their permanent counterparts, by between 20-30%.
Even so we are under pressure to reduce casual hours. A pressure which I will recommend we must not succumb to.
But if you are a casual you won't spend on anything but immediate needs. So cheaper payroll but less money returned to the economy. Or if through an agency a reluctance to buy the contract off the labour hire. Not sure how many jobs I have " lost" to this cycle.
Yes, casuals find it harder to get finance for houses, cars etc, so the economy suffers. Permanent part-time is better than casual for the economy.
This is an interesting article, that describes what the problems are in my locality.
The Biggest Steel City In The Country Is Hurting. But It's Never The One You Hear About.
A bit of help from one side
Election 2016: Arrium promised $100m lifeline from Federal Labor as steelmaker struggles - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
With a 49% counter offer from the other side ," but ours is better"! ;)
Election 2016: Government promises $49.2 million lifeline for steelmaker Arrium - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The reality is , FOR BOTH,its only conditional, for one company and doesn't go close to matching what other western nations are doing to protect their steel industry unfortunately.
I noticed that, initially from Labor & shortly after by the Coalition.
I say, that in both instances, somewhat premature.
I have previously stated the fact that blind freddie knows, and that is that we need a steel industry, ......providing it is feasible in many many ways, and not just a drain on the economy.
I believe that I have read that there is an independant report being prepared with respect to the viability of the industry,.....have others read of this?
So, I say, that this independant (non political) financial report needs to be read BEFORE any dollars are contributed by anyone.
There will obviously need to be cost cutting, productivity improvements, and who knows what else, etc etc, and of course, the "big bad" (to some, not me) Banks and other financiers will need to be consulted, and will have to agree, to any rescue mission.
So, I say, that any Govt funds promised by either side of Govt, should not occur until these other issues have been clarrified, because if they are not, then there will not be a long term future, and and contributed funds will be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I am all for saving this Industry, providing it is on a SUSTAINABLE footing.
So Frantic, have you heard what conditions are attached to these "government" offers,......surely they're not going to "contribute", without other necessary fundamentals in place?
NOT DISPUTING ANYONE'S OPINION HERE,.....JUST SAYING THAT ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS NEED TO BE IN AGREEANCE HERE, SO THAT THE INDUSTRY CAN GO TO THE FUTURE, "SUSTAINABLY"....for the company, financiers, employees,...EVERYONE.
Pickles.
.....and in the mean time the NSW govt is allowed to place a $2billion order for railway lines from an overseas supplier.
No wonder people get angry.
Whose palm got greased?
Another interesting article, basically a war on jobs where the losers are competitors pushed to bankruptcy!
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/20/china...e/7523332.html
Afaik, from reports the party offering $100mill (federal plus $50mill state)requires the future buyer to also invest $150 mill in new equipment etc in the plant.
There is less detail on the $49.2 counter offer.
As to sustainability , it depends upon the parameters and viewpoint. No global competitor , us , India uk USA etc have a sustainable industry short term, as long as China maintain their dumping discounts.
We can't claim to be a serious industrial country without a steel industry.
Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app