It’s usually that black and white.

The commission’s ruling will directly affect Sunday penalty rates paid to workers in the retail, fast food, hospitality and pharmacy industries.

Critics of the decision say the ruling could hit some workers by as much as $5000 a year.

That’s certainly a figure at the top end of the scale but there’s no doubt many people – as our labour market shifts to a higher percentage of part-time and casual workers – will be adversely affected.

Tasmania’s labour market has undergone a marked change over the past 12 months.

There has been a huge shift away from full-time employment to part-time and casual with more than 4600 full-time jobs lost since January last year, while the total number of people employed has jumped 1200.

Given the shift away from full-time employment in Tasmania, it’s fair to assume that many of those workers – almost 6000 in total – would be affected in some way by the commission’s ruling.

Of course, not everyone was displeased with the ruling. Business groups were welcoming of the cuts, saying it will help many companies keep the doors open on a Sunday. Some have even suggested it may increase employment in those sectors.

There has already been criticism here in Tasmania from business and tourism leaders, who claimed that high penalty rates on a Sunday were directly responsible for many staying closed during the peak tourism over summer.

Anecdotally at least, that was quite apparent in Launceston over the Christmas break.

It was not unusual to see tourists wandering the streets on a Sunday afternoon desperately looking for somewhere to eat.

The harsh reality is, we no longer live in a 9am-5pm, Monday to Friday society. 

For business to survive, it needs to provide a full range of services to consumers on demand. The rise of internet shopping has only exacerbated the problem.

Businesses need to have their doors open longer to suit changing lifestyles.

People have to answer the question honestly, is paying a casual workforce double time on a Sunday in the best interests of everyone – including its owners?

Perhaps not.