Why be an employer ?

[TMNT]

has anyone done a proper actual calculation of Casual vs Part/full time in terms of $$$

Here are my rough calcs if im not wrong (ignoring penalty rates)

Casual
Hourly rate +25% loading

Permanent
Hourly Rate (Based on salary)
+ 4 weeks (20 days) annual leave =7.69% based on a 52 weeks a year
+9% super
+ 5-10 days sick leave=1.92%-3.84% based on 52 weeks
+ 11 days public holiday in VIC that a casual employee wouldnt be paid but a permanenter would=4.23%

20.92% without sick leave
or
22.84-24.76% with sick pay

so it seems financially it makes not much difference to have permanent or casual, but at least with casual you can shorten shifts if its really quiet

 

[BayView]

has anyone done a proper actual calculation of Casual vs Part/full time in terms of $$$

Here are my rough calcs if im not wrong (ignoring penalty rates)

Casual
Hourly rate +25% loading

Permanent
Hourly Rate (Based on salary)
+ 4 weeks (20 days) annual leave =7.69% based on a 52 weeks a year
+9% super
+ 5-10 days sick leave=1.92%-3.84% based on 52 weeks
+ 11 days public holiday in VIC that a casual employee wouldnt be paid but a permanenter would=4.23%

20.92% without sick leave
or
22.84-24.76% with sick pay

so it seems financially it makes not much difference to have permanent or casual, but at least with casual you can shorten shifts if its really quiet

I think most industries have approx 11 paid sick days per year for full-time?

Super is now 9.25% and going up to 9.5 next July.

There are also requirements to provide for redundancy pay and long-service leave for permanents. Not required for casual.

Workcare premium (based on amount of employees and wages bill)

Permanent doesn't take into account hourly productivity based on work completed versus dollars received. ie; you can send a casual home when there are no customers or income producing work to be done to cover their wages.

Pros and cons on both sides.

The biggest Pro of all for the Employer is the dangling sword of never being able to get rid of a dud employee if they are permanent - unfair dismissal cases are very common these days, and cost the Employers lots of wasted time and money to pursue....no issue with casuals.

 

[Corey Batt]

There are also requirements to provide for redundancy pay and long-service leave for permanents. Not required for casual.

Casuals are still entitled to long service leave.

 

[pinkboy]

Casuals are still entitled to long service leave.

Yep, some industries share portable long service leave.

Also Bayview, get with the times - Super is already at 9.5%.

TMNT, you also have to pay Super to casuals if they earn more than $425 in a month.

pinkboy

 

[serendip]

I don't think the casual -v- permanent calculations show the full picture. It would obviously depend on the job & industry but i would imagine that generally casuals are likely to not hang around as long so you also need to consider employment, induction & training costs. It can be a total PITA to get rid of hopeless people but it is possible if you are fair, document things and ruthlessly follow the process.

 

[Scott No Mates]

Not everyone gets leave loading (17.5% on 4 weeks leave).

If the employee is p/t, then all of the amounts are pro-rated.

 

[pinkboy]

The best way to get rid of permanent staff if they turn out $h!t is not in the end of the game but the beginning. A bit like investing where you make your $$$ from the buy price.

When you start employees, have an 'over the top' document which welcomes them to your business, whats expected of them as an employee of your company, their roles and responsibilities, pay day etc. Put in as much information as you can. I even have a 'Disciplinary Proceedure' in my overall Charter, which outlines the process for minor infringments, but goes straight to the back of the class if you breach my 'Golden Rules'. Much like a mine - you fu<k up, expect to be kicked to the curb Matey! Have them sign the document as they have read it, along with a checklist of everything you require for them to start work.

Its much easier to rid an employee for a safety breach where they know from commencement of employment that it wont be tolerated, then to try and get them on several occasions if you dont have them wrapped around your little finger from the start.

I must confess that people I employ are certainly not the most savvy in regards to paperwork and proceedure, but I do what I have to do to protect my own interests.

My last dealing with Fair work was when I sacked a guy for 'Abandonment of employment'. (Funny story this). Guy sent all this BS to get the ball rolling with Fair Work - I get to respond in a 3 way tele-conference with Fair Work and him. 1st call, guy doesnt answer. 2nd call after a few weeks after Fair Work sent him a letter stating time and date of call. No answer. 3rd and final time, you guessed it - no answer. I get the concluding letter from Fair Work which stated something along the lines of: Ceasation of Case. Reason: 'Abandonment of hearing' !


pinkboy

 

[BayView]

Yep, some industries share portable long service leave.

Also Bayview, get with the times - Super is already at 9.5%.

TMNT, you also have to pay Super to casuals if they earn more than $425 in a month.

pinkboy

I stand corrected. Short term memory loss.


By the way; what was the scenario with the "Abandonment of employment" with your employee?

Was it a matter of "no shows" with no notification?

 

[Deltaberry]

Money should be a fundamental right. Not sure why people have to work to be paid.

 

[kathryn d]

Money should be a fundamental right. Not sure why people have to work to be paid.

You're absolutely right.
However, the individual needs to work hard the first 5-20 years of their working life, and then they can retire...and get paid for not 'working'.

The problem?
People are not willing to put in the work, to accomplish this.

 

[TMNT]

You're absolutely right.
However, the individual needs to work hard the first 5-20 years of their working life, and then they can retire...and get paid for not 'working'.

The problem?
People are not willing to put in the work, to accomplish this.

I believe its all about choices,

if you work a standard PAYG job, dont develop our career, dont invest, dont be proactive, then chances are you cant retire and live like a king.

if you choose to invest, take a few risks, make a few sacrifices, work hard then chances are you can retire early or comfortably

I give no sympathy to those who are in their 40s and above who have lived pay packet to pay packet their whole lives, no investments, have given no thought t their future and complain that they cant retire at 50

 

[BayView]

I give no sympathy to those who are in their 40s and above who have lived pay packet to pay packet their whole lives, no investments, have given no thought t their future and complain that they cant retire at 50

Correct.

And then they complain that they are "a poor pensioner" when they get to retirement.

 

[bob246810]

Wow, this thread seems a bit one-sided

To be honest, my experiences as an employee has always been the employer holding all the power, with the employee holding little to none. If your employee is crap, you've got a 6 month probation period to boot them out without any notice, so unless they're masters of deception (in which case you move them to sale), it's not hard to spot incompetence early.

Don't see much of this "entitlement" from Gen Y workers (of which I am one, I suppose). If anything, judging by comments from the earlier generations, the environment these days tends to be more pro-employer - more casuals, more redundancies, less stability, etc.

 

[kathryn d]

Wow, this thread seems a bit one-sided

To be honest, my experiences as an employee has always been the employer holding all the power, with the employee holding little to none..

The employer should have all the control, when it is their finances on the line.

The employee is free to get a job elsewhere, or start up their own business.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

More casuals are a symptom of it being too difficult for employers to dispose of non-productive employees without being sued. The casual employee gets paid a premium for it.

I'm inclined to agree that 6 months probation is usually unnecessary.

The employee has the power to walk away from a job they don't like. It's fairly difficult for an employer to sack an employee they don't like and employers definitely don't have the luxury of quitting if they're not happy.

Think of the employer employee relationship like that of a landlord and tenant. The tenant has a perception of a wealthy landlord exploiting them. In reality the landlord is usually making sacrifices in the short and medium term for a longer term goal.

I can assure you that most employers take on substantial risk to start and build a business. Most employees have very little appreciation of what a business owner goes through to make a business successful.

In a dispute situation, a tribunal tends to favor the tenant over the landlord. The same thing occurs in the workplace.

There are certainly some terrible landlords and employers out there, but there's also a lot of bad tenants and employees. For the most part however, I like to believe that most people on both sides simply want it to be fair.

Incidentally, one of my staff had almost 90 sick days last year. It was quite legitimate and I paid her the entire time because I wanted her to recover and not have to worry about money. In the 10 years since I started my business I can recall a total of 4 sick days for myself; if I don't work, I don't get paid.

 

[MaggieMcT]

In my experience it is straightforward to terminate the employment of someone who is not performing, at least procedurally, as long as you actually manage your employees appropriately, and accept that you will at some point be sued by someone, and will at some point have to pay out - to me this is the cost of doing business.


But this is what you have to do to get it right:
1. Use the bloody probationary period to assess the employee! Don't just stick them in the corner and forget about them until it's too late! We have let one or two people go during probation, and have also extended probation periods.
2. Give fair but honest performance reviews - this was a problem for us in times past, where mid-level managers were reluctant to give bad reviews because they wanted to avoid an unpleasant conversation with a difficult employee. This is both unfair to the employee who is not getting appropriate feedback, and it also disastrously undermines the procedure for letting someone go for underperformance.
3. Put in place a fair and straightforward performance policy and USE IT! Give verbal and written warnings where appropriate and then terminate employment where necessary.
4. Accept that you will be sued at some point even if you have done everything above board. Being afraid of this means you engage in crappy performance management with the inevitable result that you p*ss off your good people and encourage under-performance.

 

[TMNT]

The employer should have all the control, when it is their finances on the line.

The employee is free to get a job elsewhere, or start up their own business.

Exaclry!!!! Legalities and union stuff aside

Employer has made the active choice and taken the risk to go out on their own

They should be able to choose who they want for the business and who they feel is right

If they make the right choice, their business will bloom

If they make they wrong one, they will suffer

They need to take the good and bad

So if a boss feels like he wants to not hire people who are born on a odd numbered day of the month, then so be it

As kathryn said if employee wants to make rules up, they can start their own one and do whatever they want

 

[bob246810]

The employer should have all the control, when it is their finances on the line.
The employee is free to get a job elsewhere, or start up their own business.

Employers do have all the control already...within the confines of the law and the employment contract.

For example, beating your employees is illegal, even if yuo're the boss.

As for the "like it or lump it" view...the employer is also free to start their business elsewhere if they don't like the laws of the land.

 

[Corey Batt]

Employers do have all the control already...within the confines of the law and the employment contract.

For example, beating your employees is illegal, even if yuo're the boss.

As for the "like it or lump it" view...the employer is also free to start their business elsewhere if they don't like the laws of the land.

Considering some the decisions of Fair Work Australia, it's not surprising how concerned many business owners are about litigation.

I remember under my previous workplace when I was an employee, a staff member there was caught stealing company property. This was done under CCTV, and turned out had been happening for several months. Management sacked the staff member, who then went to the union. The union dragged it through the courts for 9 months, which resulted in the staff member being re-instated in his job and backpaid for the previous 9 months because his contract didn't specifically preclude him from stealing company stock, only 'retail' items.

Then there's the case of workers on business trips having 'rowdy' sex in motel rooms, smashing light fittings and then claiming workers compensation.

Or how about the Centrelink worker who claimed stress leave after her manager requested she stick to her 9-5pm work schedule instead of flexing up from 7am-3pm as there was a backlog of bookings requiring her - whilst the office didn't open until 9am.

The system is a joke, and the more 'protections' put in for the worker is only creating a greater dis-incentive to hire employees - you wonder why outsourcing is so prevalent.

 

[TMNT]

^ now I've heard it, a clause stating he wasn't allowed to steal stuff

I better check my employment contract too, I'm hoping therr isn't a clause where I can't beat up the boss with a kitchen knife while running a drug lab while molesting 8 yr old boys