Minimum Shifts for Young People in Australia

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Why have employer associations in the retail industry pursued a reduction in the minimum shift for school students to 1.5 hours?

To most employers, the three-hour minimum shifts are quite unreasonable and deny them the opportunity to employ young people (Stewart, 2011). By reducing the minimum shift to 1.5 hours, employers argue that they will get a chance to attract a greater number of school kids. The employers are also convinced that school-going children will be pleased with the idea. By working for fewer hours, the student will be able to manage both work and school with ease. After work, they will have more time left for studying (Wooden, 2011). The three-hour minimum shifts are very restrictive and can not allow the students to work after school. This is mainly because most businesses close at 5 pm and the students can only be available to work from 3 pm (Stewart, 2011).

Reducing the minimum shift to 1.5 hours will also enable employers to create an opportunity for young people to work and grow. Through employment at an early age, school-going kids will gain experience and learn critical work ethics that will later help them in life (NRA, 2011).

If the shorter minimum shift will create more jobs for young people, why are unions opposed to it?

Lawrence (2011) identified three reasons why unions are opposed to shorter minimum shifts. First of all, the unions believe that the implementation of the rule will kill the desire in school kids to work, and attracting them into employment will be very difficult. Secondly, the earning capacity of the working adult population will reduce drastically given that their services may not be required once the school kids report to work from school. This is a real disadvantage for the adult employees bearing in mind they need money the most to meet ends meet. Unlike the young people who may be working to get some little pocket money, the adult workers need the money to support their families. Thirdly, the unions claim that the decision will reduce the power of Australia’s award system and workers will no longer enjoy protection (Lawrence, 2011).

According to Wooden (2011), unions believe that the new rule will allow employers to exploit school kids by employing them and paying them cheaply. Stewart (2011) has argued that under the new rule employers will reduce the amount of time that adult employees can work so as to utilize the cheap made available by the working students. The employment of the adult population will therefore be in jeopardy.

Stewart (2011) also notes that the wages received by students working for fewer hours will not enable them to cover their expenses. There is also the risk of student performance declining as students may find it hard to balance between work and school (Stewart, 2011).

The Burke and Davey article presents the perspective of students at one workplace who are pleased with the change to minimum shift requirements. Do you think all school students would share their views?

I do not think that all students will share the same view as that student mentioned in the Burke and Davey article. While some students will be concerned about their studies, this may not be so with others. For the first category of students, the rule will allow them to work and still be able to create for school work. The new rule will, however, not be very welcome by the second category of students who may be more inclined towards making money than working hard at school. The school kids will not be able to earn as they wished to (Burke & Davey, 2011).

After weighing up all the evidence and arguments, do you agree with the FWA decision? Explain your position

According to the evidence provided, many businesses admitted that they would be happy to employ more school kids if the decision to lower the minimum shift to one and a half hours was passed (FWA, 2011). The evidence also indicated that the 1.5 hours work shift would be more appealing to the young people and consequently, employers will be able to employ more school kids. However, some employers felt that the 1.5 hours minimum shift would be a waste of time as the students will only be engaged for a very short time. Other evidence also indicated that students preferred longer rather than shorter work shifts (FWA, 2011).

In view of the evidence given to FWA and the arguments presented, I am in agreement with the FWA decision. Many students go through school without being exposed to any practical experience and this works against them when they start looking for jobs after school. The new rule will therefore allow employers to give students a chance to gain experience, learn work ethics, and earn. Young people also learn how to be responsible in life and employers and the entire country will benefit from a job market that is full of well-equipped individuals.

References List

Burke, K. & Davey, M., 2011. Teenagers back in business with 90-minute shifts. Auckland: Fairfax Media. Web.

Fair Work Australia (FWA)., 2011. The decision by VP Watson. Sydney: National Retail Association Limited. Web.

Lawrence, J., 2011. Shorter Shifts Leave Workers out of Pocket. Auckland: Fairfax Media. Web.

National Retail Association (NRA)., 2011. Minimum Hours Decision Will Open Doors for Young People. Australia: Media Statement. Web.

Stewart, D., 2011. Fair Work for Teens. Auckland: Fairfax Media. Web.

Wooden, M., 2011. The After-School Job is the Comeback Kid. Australia: The Conversation Media Group. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Minimum Shifts for Young People in Australia

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)