[nomilk]

But who really pays? The employer? Yes, at first, but the cost is passed straight on to consumers. Prices are sky high in Australia for this reason, businesses have many laws that each increase prices by a fraction of a percent - almost imperceptible - but cumulatively very noticeable.

[SturgeonsLaw]

Typical whinging Aussie business owner. You lot won't be happy until you turn us into another America, with at-will employment and healthcare tied to employment like a yoke around an ox.

You are neglecting to mention the power imbalance that exists between employees and employers. Like economists who view all actors as fully informed and rational market participants, your viewpoint is fantastic on paper, but in real life there are centuries of examples of ordinary workers getting exploited if regulations like these are not in place.

And hey, you might be one of the good bosses who will shrug and say "sure, no problem" if an employee wants to prioritise their life over their job. There are plenty who won't, and this law will help reign them in.

[lkois]

So, paying for a night shift will increase the cost to customers, but higher salaries negotiated by on-call employees won't?

Or did you leave out the part where those employees discover how little negotiating power they really have

[intended]

But you know what helps ?

More money in wages ! Instead of business owners getting more money? If that went instead to workers (aka consumers) then everyone would have more to spend!

Then you know who would have more money ?

Good business owners !!

——-

Demand side / supply side economics rhetoric is fun, but it’s rhetorical.

Success depends entirely on what is appropriate for the market at that given moment.

[yawaramin]

So your argument is that instead of consumers paying, employees should pay?