A proposal this week by the Launceston Chamber of Commerce to introduce a one-hour minimum shift for Tasmanian workers was labelled as ridiculous by Unions Tasmania.

The chamber plans to raise the issue as part of its submission to the Productivity Commission's public hearing in Hobart next week.

On Monday this week, the chamber's executive officer Maree Tetlow also raised the issue of penalty rates as a "major focus" with support from its members for a compromise, that included bringing Sunday rates into line with the rates paid to a worker on a Saturday.

When responding to questions by this newspaper, several Launceston business owners supported the idea of a one-hour minimum shift.

But that's not unexpected.

The flexibility offered by such a proposal to small business in this state would have obvious benefits for any company's bottom line.

There would be many smaller businesses that would welcome the ability to employ a casual worker for an hour over a normally business lunchtime, or a junior for an hour after school when foot traffic increases.

This is certainly a situation that should be discussed. There's nothing wrong with unions and employers having this discussion. What concessions or trade-offs could be made by both sides during these negotiations?

However, unions could no doubt successfully argue their case that a worker could easily accrue costs attending work for an hour that would outstrip any wage they receive.

Across the board, such a move could prove simply too difficult. And what's to stop much larger, multi-national companies simply moving large numbers of its casual staff on to shorter working hours rather than them having the 'safety net' of reasonable working hours?

Any change - be it to minimum wages, penalty rates or minimum working hours - must place equal importance on the rights of the worker as to that of the employer.