roobarb:

 

Absolutely, hospitals, police, fire-service, petrol stations. It could catch on.

 

Sigh.

gzt: Imo weekends ceased to exist sometime after Sunday trading started.

Bring back Sunday trading laws or/and penal rates. Add Saturday because it's 2024. Add Fridays a few years later.

Social problems will reduce. CO2 emissions will reduce. Civilization crash averted. Solved.

Can I have some of what you are smoking ? Seems like it's powerful stuff :)

Lias:

 

... is not fit for purpose for the 21st century

What would be fit for purpose for the 21st century? A century characterised by extreme climate change in the middle of the century, with the equatorial regions becoming uninhabitable, wide spread drought and famine, along with flooding due to rising sea levels. Resource wars and population movements, not on a biblical scale but on an industrial scale. At one extreme is the collapse of modern industrial civilisation and the other mass extinction including homosapians. Every dystopian novel you read or film you saw is the happy case. The capitalist economic model is incapable of addressing the threat because the future is neither a share-holder or an entry on the balance sheet. Politicians won't act because it is outside of the 3 to 5 year election cycle.

In the earlier part of the century you have a generation who know their future has been stolen or burnt, there won't be anything like retirement and getting on the property ladder requires your parents to have died. You have no job security because everything is gig-working and you are still paying your mortgage sized debt for going to college.

I'm not sure that 24x7 shopping is going to be that much of a game-changer.

networkn:

gzt: Imo weekends ceased to exist sometime after Sunday trading started.

Bring back Sunday trading laws or/and penal rates. Add Saturday because it's 2024. Add Fridays a few years later.

Social problems will reduce. CO2 emissions will reduce. Civilization crash averted. Solved.

Can I have some of what you are smoking ? Seems like it's powerful stuff :)

I'm happy with the holidays.  But the trading rules are out of date. We aren't living in a theocracy and our laws should reflect this.

Surcharge seems to be a business decision to me.  I avoid places that charge it.

MikeAqua:

 

I'm happy with the holidays.  But the trading rules are out of date. We aren't living in a theocracy and our laws should reflect this.

 

Surcharge seems to be a business decision to me.  I avoid places that charge it.

 

Surcharge 

 

1. You reduce costs, ie stop paying penal rates and days in lieu , thats illegal
2. you charge a surcharge to those people who want service during these times
3. you charge everybody throughout the entire year more to cover the extra costs

The money has to come from somewhere.

These public holidays are used by families, organisations, etc etc etc as times where they can have planned events. Eg Wings over Wanaka, tramping club hikes, medieval reenactment meets, car enthusiast meets, etc etc etc. They also give employers a schedule where they know they need to adjust work to meet staff numbers. Likewise school holidays.

Religion has nothing to do with it anymore, the majority of people just consider it a public holiday. It, as with many other holidays has been commercialised  for special treats, sales, etc. Without these holidays commerce, tourism, etc, and society in general will suffer.

I am an atheist, and yet I enjoy these public holidays with the family.

I can not see employers willing to "exchange" our public holidays with ones from every other culture, so people get paid holidays for Ramadan, Yom Kippur , etc.

Mind you schools may be interested in having the "summer break" during winter when its cold an wet. Stops the kids being stuck inside, reduces seasonal illnesses etc. Align our school year and holidays with the USA...

sir1963:

 

 

1. You reduce costs, ie stop paying penal rates and days in lieu , thats illegal
2. you charge a surcharge to those people who want service during these times
3. you charge everybody throughout the entire year more to cover the extra costs

 

4) You don't charge a surcharge, and attract customers like me, who prefer not to pay a surcharge. 

5) You decide to open without a surcharge, make a little less margin, but decide it's still better to make x amount of money, rather than $0.

Ultimately, as has been mentioned over and over, and is pretty much irrefutable at this point, it's a choice the business makes, and the consumer makes, neither is right or wrong, neither is immoral or illegal. It's a matter of preference. 

networkn:

 

 

 

I think these are partially valid concerns. The idea isn't to try and get more people working per se, but don't forget, employees who work public holidays get time in Lieu, AND pay at the rate of time and a half.  There are a lot of Kiwi's who are happy to work under those conditions, and a lot of people for whom Easter isn't a big deal. Whilst it's true that some businesses may feel compelled to open because their opposition is open, this is a choice. Lots of businesses make choices that prioritise staff well-being (4 day weeks, when their opposition work 5 days a week).  I am not suggesting compelling people to be open, any more than I am suggesting banning of surcharges for public holidays, I am saying it should be a *choice* to open, as it should be possible for people to choose to support a business who doesn't surcharge on public holidays, without being set upon by those who wish to make the matter a moral or guilt issue. 

 

As far as I know, it's already illegal to compel a worker to work a public holiday, but potentially additional protections could be put in place to ensure this is the case for the 12 or so public holidays. A lot of places open now regardless, and are happy to take the $1000 fine, as it's a rounding error on sales. If supermarket x closed on those holidays and supermarket y opened, to me as a potential worker, this is a consideration when deciding where I apply for work for example. 

 

 

 

my issue is that tho its a "choice" to open, it soon won't be. just look at people breaking the rules and getting fines etc, because the profit exceeds the fine. employees may get time 1.5 etc now, but when everyone is open on the holidays you can guarantee the businesses will kick up a fuss about the cost and that will disappear. its a standard tactic.

the holidays will cease to exist for many low income and middle income families. the peasants will be doing the work so the lords are not inconvenienced on their holiday.

tweake:

 

my issue is that tho its a "choice" to open, it soon won't be. just look at people breaking the rules and getting fines etc, because the profit exceeds the fine. employees may get time 1.5 etc now, but when everyone is open on the holidays you can guarantee the businesses will kick up a fuss about the cost and that will disappear. its a standard tactic.

 

Citation on 'standard tactic'? Where is this? When? Examples (would need to be a few from which to be able to call it 'standard'. 

 

the holidays will cease to exist for many low income and middle income families. the peasants will be doing the work so the lords are not inconvenienced on their holiday.

 

I have no issue with workers getting T1.5 and a day in Lieu and I would not support that being abolished. So long as that stays intact, your argument is invalid. I don't see a single argument for that here or in the thread that started this. I can't think of any business I know of that would support this.

I'm confident we would pay this even if it was not law. 

networkn:

 

 

 

I have no issue with workers getting T1.5 and a day in Lieu and I would not support that being abolished. So long as that stays intact, your argument is invalid. I don't see a single argument for that here or in the thread that started this. I can't think of any business I know of that would support this.

 

I'm confident we would pay this even if it was not law. 

 

it would never stay that way. i've been down that road before, overtime rates disappeared as soon as they got a chance. as soon as they get people working holidays i can bet there will be a big push for T1.5 etc to all disappear. almost every business out there would support getting rid of T1.5, day in lue etc. so your whole idea will never work because those laws will never stay once they open it up.

its also no choice for the workers either. if the business is open they have to work. we had that with Saturday trading, if they opened for Saturday you had to work Saturday. funny enough there was so little sales, they soon stopped being open. 

tweake:

 

it would never stay that way. i've been down that road before, overtime rates disappeared as soon as they got a chance. as soon as they get people working holidays i can bet there will be a big push for T1.5 etc to all disappear. almost every business out there would support getting rid of T1.5, day in lue etc. so your whole idea will never work because those laws will never stay once they open it up.

 

its also no choice for the workers either. if the business is open they have to work. we had that with Saturday trading, if they opened for Saturday you had to work Saturday. funny enough there was so little sales, they soon stopped being open. 

 

Do you have any citation? Actual evidence to support your claims? I don't believe what you are saying, would play out here. 

networkn:

 

tweake:

 

it would never stay that way. i've been down that road before, overtime rates disappeared as soon as they got a chance. as soon as they get people working holidays i can bet there will be a big push for T1.5 etc to all disappear. almost every business out there would support getting rid of T1.5, day in lue etc. so your whole idea will never work because those laws will never stay once they open it up.

 

its also no choice for the workers either. if the business is open they have to work. we had that with Saturday trading, if they opened for Saturday you had to work Saturday. funny enough there was so little sales, they soon stopped being open. 

 

 

Do you have any citation? Actual evidence to support your claims? I don't believe what you are saying, would play out here. 

 

i don't need any evidence to support anything. this isn't a trail. its nothing but opinion. 

for me i've lived it. take my word for it or not i don't give a damn. 

networkn:

 

sir1963:

 

 

1. You reduce costs, ie stop paying penal rates and days in lieu , thats illegal
2. you charge a surcharge to those people who want service during these times
3. you charge everybody throughout the entire year more to cover the extra costs

 

 

4) You don't charge a surcharge, and attract customers like me, who prefer not to pay a surcharge. 

 

5) You decide to open without a surcharge, make a little less margin, but decide it's still better to make x amount of money, rather than $0.

 

Ultimately, as has been mentioned over and over, and is pretty much irrefutable at this point, it's a choice the business makes, and the consumer makes, neither is right or wrong, neither is immoral or illegal. It's a matter of preference. 

 

Please tell me, how much margin are these places making.

give some numbers, do the maths, given how many cafes close each year I don't believe its the goldmine you think is.

Given the number that chose not to open, I am guessing it's because it's not worth while financially. Making $0 is still better than making a loss.

I also doubt that "Customers like you" are that important in the great scheme of things, nor would the extra few people have made any great difference to the turn over.

So it boils down to this, you opinion is

The extra costs for public holidays must be paid by someone, be it the owner, or all the customers paying extra during the year.... just so long as it is not you.

And all this started because some people thought it was unfair on them that the businesses made a business decision to add a surcharge, which is not illegal, not immoral, and it allowed them to cover the extra costs for opening on a public holiday. I am sure those cafes that did have a surcharge did not lack customers, so I would say the majority of customers had no issues the cafe I go to was closed on Friday and had lots of customers on Saturday, so much so we had to wait over 10 minutes for our coffees to be made.

sir1963:

 

Please tell me, how much margin are these places making.

 

give some numbers, do the maths, given how many cafes close each year I don't believe its the goldmine you think is.

 

You're the one that took the dissenting/responding view, where's your numbers? Where's your maths? Why is it only people that disagree with you that have to provide a worksheet but you don't? And you're completely ignoring how every single other venue (including the nightlife half of the hospitality industry) doesn't surcharge, still incurs those additional staffing costs, and get along fine.

 

So it boils down to this, you opinion is

 

The extra costs for public holidays must be paid by someone, be it the owner, or all the customers paying extra during the year.... just so long as it is not you.

 

I don't see where he even implied that. All he said is that a business makes a choice whether they open and whether they surcharge, and the consumer makes a choice which establishments they patronise for whatever reason they choose which for some people includes whether a place surcharges. You and tdgeek are the ones making out like it's an entitled immoral stance that a surcharge could be a consideration as to which places to patronise.

 

And all this started because some people thought it was unfair on them that the businesses made a business decision to add a surcharge, which is not illegal, not immoral, and it allowed them to cover the extra costs for opening on a public holiday. I am sure those cafes that did have a surcharge did not lack customers, so I would say the majority of customers had no issues the cafe I go to was closed on Friday and had lots of customers on Saturday, so much so we had to wait over 10 minutes for our coffees to be made.

 

No, it started on a post in the "what's something small that really annoys you?" thread where a person said "public holiday surcharges" and "getting lectures on foodie forums for disagreeing with them [surcharges]". Because it is a small thing, it's annoying, and given the choice between a place that charges one and one that doesn't, the surcharge could factor into the decision as to which establishment to patronise. Nobody said anything about "fairness" until you sprinted in with your rather ironically timed lecture on the entitled morality of demanding all venues drop surcharges, which noone did anyway.