But it's still better than Workchoices... Rite?

It may be the case that Mine Host is having to spring for $66,400 per year to put an attendant his is driveway.

However, due to provisions of the groovy new "Fair Work" Act (supposedly Better than the "Workchoices" it replaced) the Swinging Arms, on the same town block, only has to cough for circa $55,000 for exactly the same job, working exactly the same hours.

Both the Wayside Tavern & the Swinging Arms are fully compliant with the Fair Work Act. Both have exactly the same Liquor Licence, the same trading hours, operate under the exact same section of the exact same award. Both have the exact same ownership structure.

On certain days, Mine Host has to pay almost double the pay as does the Swinging Arms.

This is a stark example of how ill thought out & hasty is the "Fair Work" Act.

Nope, No Inflation here

$66,400 (Sixty Six Thousand and Four Hundred Dollars)

This is the minimum cost under the current award of a pub Driveway Attendant. ("Driveway Attendant" is the groovy new official name for what is known in the vernacular as a "Bottleshop Boy")
Bottleshop Boy is the most unskilled & low paid job in a pub.
Bar staff cost more.

Does anyone think I am doing anything but looking over the staff roster with a beady eye?
Does anyone think that this sort of minimum cost for unskilled labour (usually the job is filled by lads who've just left school) is not going to lead to some serious introspection on Sunday & late trading?

No wonder half the restaurants in the nation were unable to pay the new penalty rates, and instead closed for the whole week over Easter.

The new "Fair Work" Act is not going to lead to unskilled & shift workers being paid more, it is going to lead to those who need it most not having a casual or other job.

Oh, and the country will be a wasteland of closed shopfronts after 5pm, and on weekends.

In that Case, Get an Earful of This!

A memorable ending for a phone to the bank.

The identity of this bank shall be concealed by using the unbreakable code name of - say - ZNA Bank.

For a bit of background, ZNA Bank has been strictly observing banking rules (& etc) with Mine Host. They have been refusing to allow depositing of cheques made out to "Wayside Motel" on the basis that the account is in the name of "Wayside Hotel" (sweet smile: "You'll just have to contact the drawer sir, & get them to reissue a cheque in the correct name") & other such infuriating conduct.

Then Mine Host discovers that ZNA has been taking orders for chequebooks (on one of his accounts) from members of his staff, who are not signatories to that account. These non-signatories then wrote a pile of cheques, all of which were honoured by ZNA Bank.

Mine Host is relishing the forthcoming "Please Explain" meeting he will be having with the branch manager.

For those unfamiliar with the twists of modern banking, (".. to better serve your financial needs"), it is not that they honoured cheques without verifying the signature that will embarrass the bank, but the issuing of chequebooks to non-signatories.
That they have been honouring cheques written with an invalid signature will not cause the bank to bat an eyelid. In our improved modern banking system this is the problem of the account holder.

With this bit of background in mind, one can imagine Mine Host's distress when the transaction banking helpdesk refused to discuss anything with him. For he was unable to satisfy the bank's security requirements & the operator was "unable to confirm identity".

It would seem the security procedures for mere phone conversation with the bank are considerably tighter than those required to have a chequebook printed & handed over.

Mine Host, by now experiencing a transitional mood, expounded down the phone on the subject of security procedures as they applied to telephone conversations or chequebook possession. During this delivery of opinion he may have used the "BS" word to describe the actions of ZNA Bank.

The operator then got all indignant & prissy, as if it was Mine Host and not the bank who was out of order, and in a stern tone of voice informed Mine Host that if he persisted with "language like that" she would terminate the call.

Mine Host reflected briefly on this.
The bank was refusing to talk to him, thus the call was going nowhere anyway,
The bank had sins aplenty,
The operator would not tolerate any "further" bad language,
The operator had stated emphatically that it was impossible to identify the caller,

Mine Host then gave her very good reason to terminate the call.