In case you hadn't heard, Australian Unions (and the AMWU in particular) are calling for a boycott of Streets Ice Cream this summer.
Apparently the Enterprise Agreement Streets had with their workers was paying them 46% above the award - and Streets wants to terminate the Agreement and revert to the award rate.
I want to know, will you be supporting the boycott?
(In other words, will you cheapness override your sympathy for workers getting a big pay-cut?).
The award is the absolute bottom, not something you survive on, something for young people to start from, not a permanent wage condition
The award will effectively mean most will have to find a new job.
The fact that they're not bankrupt with current wages mean its sustainable. A 46% cut is extreme, I assume they were being paid too high anyway for what I assume is a low skill job. There is no attempt from what we can see of a middle ground
The parent company is Unilever. They are one or the largest companies in the world.
They are a long way from becoming bankrupt.
Why does it have to be in summer? Can I boycott it in winter instead?
The unions are idiots.
If they are successful in their calls for boycott, the golden goose gets killed and no one has a job.
Manufacturing in Australia is too expensive because Unions keep wanting more and more. This also happened with Griffin Coal in WA, the owners were within their rights to cut pay by 43% to the award, but the workers resisted. The owners even offered to slowly transition the reduction so as not to cause a shock, the workers resisted. Griffin Coal closed, workers wondered why.
I've never had a Golden Gaytime before, but now I will go out and buy a few to support Streets for standing up to the unions.
I don't know about you, tsunami surfer, but I'm sailing pretty close to the wind, money-wise.
I haven't had a pay rise in years, in fact everyone where I work had to take a significant pay cut a year or two back to help keep the business afloat. Meanwhile, utilities and councils and governments and everyone else all continue to put their prices up.
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't eat out, I don't make enough to save, but on the plus side, I don't have any debts. What could I possibly stop spending on if I had to endure a 47% pay cut?
Sandp's estimate of $67000 is way below average wages.
In this case, Streets is asking the workers' pay be in line with the award wages.
Award wages have been deemed by the independant Fairwork process as a reasonable living wage.
Now if you are looking at a 47% decrease TO the award means you are earning roughly double.
If you can't live on less than double the award wage, I feel there is an issue with your expenditures.
If Sandp's estimate of $67000 is correct, then a 47% cut brings their pay down to less than $35000. Could you live on that? I know I couldn't.
If you support the Streets workers pay being cut to $35000, which you seem to think is plenty to live on, shouldn't you also be just as happy to have your own wages cut to the same level?
$35k is below the Australian minimum wage, so it is unlikely they are offering below the minimum unless we are not talking about full time anymore.
Regardless, its not about is the Streets worker can live on that or not, its about the award.
Streets are required to pay the award, the Streets worker is free to look for another job if that is not to their financial requirements.
Regardless, its not about is the Streets worker can live on that or not, its about the award.
No, it's about Streets wanting to break the agreement that Streets voluntarily made with their workers.
Streets are required to pay the award
No, Streets are required to pay what the agreement that they voluntarily made says.
Streets no longer want to do that, so they want to break that agreement. The workers just want what they bargained for, and what the company agreed to.
$35k is below the Australian minimum wage
Sandp's figures came from the actual award.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/modern_awards/awa…
Terms of employment change all the time, its not unusual. Neither is a drop in pay. Its just that this is a bigger change than the norm. Enterprise bargaining often leads to a better result for the workers, you don't see them crying that they are breaking the deal they had with their employer years ago.
Streets want a new deal and as long as it is within the letter of the law, I don't have a problem with that.
If the Streets workers feel that they can get a similar or better deal elsewhere, they are free to vote with their feet, no one is forcing the Streets workers to take the pay cut.
Streets want a new deal and as long as it is within the letter of the law, I don't have a problem with that.
Streets and the workers have a valid legal workplace agreement that has not expired. Streets want to break that agreement. That is not "within the letter of the law", so why don't you have a problem with it?
It is not illegal, they have followed the prescribed process of making the application to Fiar Work Australia who have the authority to ratify.
If it was illegal the union and the workers would have zero to worry about.
It is because the process is above board that the overpaid workers are sh!tting themselves. Not only is the process legal, the case Unilever puts forward holds water.
Frankly, I'd rather give the workers what their end game is, for Streets to be unviable, the Minto plant closes and they are left with nothing. Perhaps only then will they and the unions realise the dark path they lead the company towards.
And my ice creams actually become cheaper coming from Europe.
Streets workers just hang their hat on 'the previous deal' and put their fingers into their ears that the world is changing that this is not sustainable.
You'd think they learned from seeing what has happened to car manufacturing in Australia.
If they are deadset on seeing themselves out of a job, I'm going to enjoy the newspaper stories about how they can't find another job in 1-2 years time.
@tsunamisurfer:
I'm with tsunamisurfer.
Overpaid to begin with (well over what other similar workers on similar awards outside of their factory),
Now they're being paid what they should have in the first place.
Unhappy that the gravy train has stopped?
Maybe they should work on getting the award wage raised, to benefit all workers (not just in the ones in their own factory).
@pjetson:
Is it a pay cut of 46% or removal of the 46% premium above award like the OP states? The ACTU's estimate of wage cuts represents much more than the OP's figure WRT award. Anyone working on an expired double award enterprise agreement should be nervous.
and saw this today where it states min wage is actually $34000
http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/work/2017/11/02/call-living-…
.
https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-g…
Fairwork says its $694.90 / week so I multipled by 52 weeks to be ~$36k.
It isn't illegal because we have a government who are happy to make laws that allow workers to be screwed over. That doesn't make it just, moral or desirable.
The awards are determined by FairWork who is an independant body.
The government nor workers / unions tell FairWork how to set the amounts.
Ha! If Fairwork is independent, I am Batman!
You either believe anything or are actively spreading lies. One day the corruption will come to light.
What we have today is Howard's Workchoices, slightly differently framed.
EBAs mean a worker has no ability to negotiate. They can like or lump what is negotiated on their behalf.
And it is well documented that the top 1% is getting richer while the rest fight over the scraps.
You should try house-sharing if you want to save.
Well look at what they were doing at CUB! They tried to cut down some peoples wages there and the boycott saw them get hired again.
I think there is nothing wrong to standing up to companies and saying enough massive profits! Pay your people correctly here in Australia.
The whole "we need decent wages thing is sending jobs overseas" is a total furphy. Look at Germany!
Its not a case of Streets not being able to afford these wages, its a case of not being able to make as much money as compared to elsewhere. If they do shut up shop and import their products, then they lose their "Made in Australia" status and people may adjust their purchasing preferences.
I tend to agree with you, but you're making a poor argument to support it.
Unions help workers. Are you a worker?
the owners of company's are greedy and you are an idiot… leave the coal where it is…
Too many flaws with this idiotic union's stance.
1) If people were to literally boycott the products in question, and that too to a considerable extent and for an extended period, their members (ie. the employees calling for this propaganda) would be swiftly made redundant citing loss of sales. The union will then complain that their members have been made redundant, the government did not intervene (read: throw cash) at the right time.
Who wins? The heavyweight unions and their mates.
2) The union is complaining that their members' wages are being cut. Workers in this realm should be well aware of the award rate, and their acceptance to be employed for that job (and the company's acceptance of that person as an employee for that role) constitutes an agreement that the remuneration payable will be at least to the standards as advised in the applicable award. If you get paid extra, great, but you cannot legally be paid less. These people used to get paid 46% above their award rates, and now they will be paid the award rate. In the eyes of the law, nobody is being hard done by here. If they prefer having heavier pockets, perhaps those employees should upskill and find a more lucrative career, such as a neurosurgeon or a criminal lawyer.
3) The unions are understandably caring for their members. What they are neglecting to take into account is the fact that if their members are paid more (and in turn the unions can get more in fees), then the products they are making must be sold at a premium. In this day and age where cost-of-living expenses are rising out of line with income increases, the majority (perhaps not all) of customers will be looking for the cheapest available option when it comes to their 30-60 seconds outside the supermarket freezer. You argue for your employees to be paid more, you are then also arguing the fruits of your members' labour to be sold for more. Is that a good economic decision given the current climate? That's not up to me. That's up to customers to make.
Also OzB would be flooded with cheap Streets deals and yall know you gonna buy it if it does.
actually this is a strategy, if for one week no one bought the ice-cream the company would now that it needs to honour their agreement with their employees as their customers started to question their practices
'A more lucrative career, such as a… criminal lawyer'. I think you'll find the majority of practitioners in that area, unless they're top-shelf barristers, are paid very little for their hours.
And Australian companies end up moving overseas for this reason…
Sorry unions, but Unicorn Gaytimes won.
So I can get a Unicorn called gaytime now? Or a gaytime that is unicorn flavoured?
I saw Unicorn flavoured Gaytimes in Coles the other day. They must use farm-raised rather than wild-caught unicorns in them, but it would explain why they're cutting workers wages.
Edit: https://www.theurbanlist.com/sydney/a-list/golden-gaytime-un…
… andfeeding dissenters to the factory unicorns mixed with grain to beef them up. its a travesty! Save the Save the Unicorns!
… and, of course, the maidens required to herd Unicorns safely would require their 47% above award wage to maintain their maiden status.
Imagine yourself as the company, your choices:
Unions want option 1. There is no incentive for the company to do that. It's stupid. If the unions win, Streets will just shut the factory.
Do you know that the factory is/would operate at a loss at current wage levels?
even if it isn't running at a loss now
it would not be operating at the rate the company wants/projects to stay competitive
if this happens long enough…its only a matter of time before they "cut their losses"
this said,
there is not guarantee that #3 will stay viable and they don't resort to option #2
Option X: Make all non-trade staff redundant, auction old gear, buy new automated tech.
Option Y: Rebrand
Option Z: Make a meme ad aimed at 18-35 year old men.
Or options are factory stays running in Aust but the company makes a heap more money with one option.
If this happened to me, I would just shut down the company for good and move onto something new.
edit: awaits inevitable centrelink joke
Excellent. If you can't pay a living wage, that is exactly what you should do.
So no wage is better than a low wage?
If you can't afford the basics, what is the point of earning money? Make room for a business run on a model that does put aside enough money to pay the people that do the work. Anything else is slavery.
@syousef: Let's see. How about
Increasing self-respect
Learning personal discipline
Learning valuable skills and trades
Reducing your reliance on society to subsidise your life
to name just a few benefits of work over living off government hand-outs.
Of course, if you combine two slightly less-than-living wages, and combine it with low-income benefits, you just might get two living wages.
You shouldn't need government handouts if you're working a full time job. That does nothing for self respect. And how valuable are those skills if they can't earn you a decent living? As for discipline there are much less taxing ways to learn that too. What you're saying is you're willing to work for so little pay your life can't be sustained. Or are you only willing for others to do that? Perhaps the employer should be the one who reduces their reliance on society subsidising their profit.
Tell me with both people working full time and still relying on handouts, who is going to raise the kids? Who is going to do the housework? What kind of self respect do you have when your house is a mess, your kids run amuck, all so your employer can make a larger profit? And why are they working this hard? Just to subsist?
What you want to do is underpay people. Everything else is just excuses. No. Hell no. Pay people a living wage, or step aside and let someone who will fill the void. We don't need slavery or indentured servitude to come back, thanks very bloody much.
This kind of thinking in an economic downturn would be disastrous. Imagine if there was some economic crisis and wage cuts had to occur for businesses to remain open. With your option, you're saying that all those people being unemployed is better than paying them a lower amount. In a situation where there's economic strife, low wage is better than no wage.
Whereas your kind of thinking leads to working your way down to poverty. Your assumption is that you can't create businesses that thrive while paying their employees a living wage. That is just complete and utter baloney. How do you think Streets has stayed in business this long? And why do you think people threw themselves off buildings in the 1930s if a low wage is so preferable? Some literally would rather die. If you want to work for a low wage, go right ahead. I bet you won't though. I bet you want it for others.
@syousef: If you don't want to work for a low wage - don't take a low wage job. Simple.
But don't expect me or anyone else to subsidise your lifestyle choice. Also simple.
Paying people a 'living wage' may well mean massively overpaying some people. It is also inflationary and creates a cycle which is hard to control.
Work is meritorious - no matter the pay.
If you want someone to work for you, pay them a decent wage. Simple.
But don't expect people to work for you for free or for a pittance, or to subsidize your profits. Also simple.
if you can't afford your staff, you can't afford your business. Trivially simple.
Work isn't "meritous" if you're watching your kid starve or die of a disease. I bet a parent in that situation would tell you where to stick your merit badge. If you disagree, why don't you line up and work for free?
@syousef: As it happens, I don't want anyone to work for me right now. But, if I did, I would pay them what I believed was appropriate for the position and the employees' ability to add value to the business. In most cases, that would be the award. In some, above the award.
You cannot simply demand to be paid above the award if your work and value-adding does not justify it.
In this case it seems that a local workforce is not value-adding to the business at all - if anything it is a value-deficit.
That leaves workers' bargaining position extremely low.
"I would pay them what I believed was appropriate for the position and the employees' ability to add value to the business"
Oh baloney! You'd pay as little as you could get away with and spout rubbish about how "meritous" their work is.
You have no idea what value these employees do or do not add or what their conditions are and I'm sure you couldn't care less.
"You cannot simply demand to be paid above the award if your work and value-adding does not justify it."
Clearly their work has justified it for decades. I'll repeat again. Award is the MINIMUM. It's what you give some young kid who's learning the ropes. It isn't what you give experienced staff who do add value. 46% isn't unreasonable for 2 or 3 DECADES of pay rises.
@syousef: Things change. The company has said it is cheaper to import frozen products from overseas than produce it locally. Unless there's a huge movement to not buy imported ice cream - the value add seems dubious.
In that case they'll be out of a job regardless and should stand their ground till their jobs are gone. They shouldn't try to match overseas wages while living in a more expensive country. It's a race to the bottom. As I said once all worker's wages are down there will be no one left to buy the stuff.
Apparently the Enterprise Agreement Streets had with their workers was paying them 46% above the award
Does this mean consumers have been paying extra for this cream?
46% above award rates? Sounds like the unions are being greedy, not Streets being cheap. I'm going to eat what I want to eat.
How much above award rates are you being paid, 0blivion?
None. My industry doesn't have an award rate. How bout that? Every cent I earn, I negotiated and have to justify.
How would you like being covered by an EBA? You don't get to negotiate or justify. Just accept it or find something else.
Maybe every company out there should start paying their staff the award… if anyone complain call them greedy.
This thread has the disgusting feel of Bali forums where people expect others should only be paid the minimal wage
For Fair Work Australia to throw out the EBA and go back to the Award it needs to pass the BOOT test (Better off overall test).
I question the figures the unions are claiming.
BOOT test is something that is paid lip service. Plenty of EBAs **** over the employees and are rubber stamped. I wonder how they are getting around it here - perhaps stating that employee would have no job as continuing to pay would force closure. A job is better than no job so BOOT ticked.
Yep there are problems with BOOT being that it looks at employees as a group rather than each individual.
And it's really trivially easy to use that to reduce any entitlement not enjoyed by the majority. Trade it for a small pay rise. BOOT test passed. Following EBA, target a different set of entitlements. Rinse and repeat. Pretty soon all worker entitlements traded for below inflation wage increases. 10 years later you've managed to decrease the standard of living of your workforce. Which is what a lot of the wannabe business owners on this thread want.
I reckon whoever negotiated that Agreement on behalf of the workers deserves a medal.
(Whoever negotiated on behalf of the company needs the sack).
The problem is do you know what skill is involved
Self control, so you don't gorge yourself at the Gaytime production line.
But you don't know what conditions were given up for the extra pay.
They may have had RDOs, or a great redundancy or health package that they gave up for dollars in the pay slip, going back to the award do the lost conditions return?
Are you from America? Rdos are actual worker's wage that got deducted out of their weekly work hour, redundancy sounds nice if you retire next year and the company goes belly up otherwise no one with a mortgage want that option, and health package is an American thing.
I've got a mortgage… a decent redundancy would be awesome, a pile of free cash and I'd just get another job, so massive net gain.
Health packages are not just an American thing (although they're basically a necessity to have there, here's it's just a moderately unusual perk).
RDOs can be for all sorts of things and are frequently paid (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/hours-of-w…).
Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all?
@elyobo: did you actually read your link, RDO is something like 'you worked 40 hours a week but government only allow 38/wk as full-time, so how about we took that 2 hour pay off payslip and put in RDO so every 4 week you get a day off'. So employer actually gain from this because they don't have to pay that extra 2hr overtime rate every week.
Health insurance, tell me where you can get employer package where I can get my root canal done with $100 excess or $500 for obstetrician attended birth? Otherwise these perks in Australia are just measly discount on monthly premium. It's nothing to brag home, let alone comparing to america where some guys earn $30k a year can get the best ophthalmologist in the country to perform vision correction, within a week for only $300 excess.
@lgacb08: Yeah, that's exactly what the common RDO is; you just work an average of 38 hours a week. Most salaried jobs don't get overtime, so in that case the worker is really the one benefiting from the RDO, as they wouldn't otherwise have got anything but instead get a day off every week. The worker gets paid nothing less than they would have otherwise and ends up with additional leave.
Health insurance is not common, but I've interviewed for jobs that have it (working in software development, which is a bit of a spoiled industry). As I said, an unusual perk, but hardly American only.
If I voluntarily agreed to pay you $x per hour to work for me, then decided to actually pay you just half of that, I'm guessing that all you anti-worker people here are saying that you'd be happy with that?
Or is it somehow different for you?
To be clear, no one is saying they should be HAPPY about it.
Of course they have a right to be mad.
So leave and find a similar job if they are so afronted.
Maybe they are holding on because…you know….there is nothing over that horizon?
I'm with tsunamisurfer.
They were overpaid to start off with. Now they're being paid what they should have in the first place.
Unhappy? Maybe they should work on getting the award wage raised, to benefit all workers (not just in the ones in their own factory).
As long as you’re happy making them redundant with a payout. That’s what makes it equitable - because you’re changing the contract in a way that the other party doesn’t agree with.
@DoctorOwl: A redundancy is inappropriate for this scenario. The role is very much still there. That's what Unilever is actually fighting for, a sustainable long term livelihood for the workers.
If i had 9 years on the job and was looking at sone long service next year and about to see my wage significantly reduced i would be especially annyed.
Streets paid them according to the Agreement. Now the Agreement has EXPIRED and they're re-negotiating.
Im sorry, I ate some yesterday, I loved it too. I would kick a stink up if my wage was going to be reduced, but it could possibly end up completely automated for less. More info is needed, and more icecream too!
If you ask for a yes/no vote then "I want to know, will you be supporting the boycott?" does not equal "will you cheapness override your sympathy for workers getting a big pay-cut?"
I am shocked and kind of disappointed at the survey results here. Yes, we're on Ozbargain, but I assumed the community supported workers (we've got to earn money to pay for these bargains!). Unilever, who owns Streets, is not Australian and does not need to cut the wages of these workers.
You may recall several reasons why they are dodgy… Those Lynx ads are one example.
Faux internet shock, disappointment and survey shaming are persuasion techniques of the left and so overused it's beyond saturation point. Shock comes from having incorrect expectations. Look inwards to correct those faulty expectations and reduce future shock and disappointment.
You may have noticed that I didn't tell anyone how to think or feel and only mentioned my opinions and facts I thought were relevant. My expectations, that you so vehemently criticise, are firmly routed in my knowledge of Australian history and our labour rights movement by the way. And, as anyone who has taken a cursory glance at our history will know, this labour rights movement I speak of was incredibly racist. So I don't think this issue is really as simple as left vs right. I'm not really sure what the point of your reply is other than to tell me that my wrong in your opinion? Interesting approach.
The emotional experiential parts of your delivery have been done to death by the left. You have a view. Other people have a view. Fine. Agree or disagree, but surprise then disappointment then community condemnation are not opinions, they are melodramatic self narrative and theatre props trying to sell your message with emotional blackmail and rhetoric rather than rational argument. If you are one of the Streets workers, maybe your emotions are worth a running commentary, but expressing disappointment is condescending and going to get rebuked. Anybody can be disappointed, then it becomes a race to the bottom of who is most shocked or disappointmented. Do my moribund disconsolation, profound existential malody and forlorn plaintive lament trump your 'kind of disappointed'? It's all a bit emo scrabble. If you can't deal with the simple results of an online poll, find a safe space.
@Frugal Rock: Surprisingly articulate Frugal Rock. While i'm sure most people would agree a tiny minority of left's do overuse some of these tactics, please don't confuse your left with your right when talking about rational arguments… thats just laughable.
@SkMed:
Rationale? Hmm. The left spend their time browbeating others with their social values…on the internet using computers. Interesting. Digital computers were invented by Konrad Zuse who spent his time trying to sell his inventions to the Nazi regime for global domination. His patents were transferred to IBM directly coinciding with the annexation of Berlin, his hometown, at the end of WW2. Digital computers, shared instruction/data busses and floating point technology are directly attributable to Zuse for the Nazi war effort. The concept of languages higher than assembly are Zuse's invention also. Does it get any more hypocritical than using Nazi technology, widely accepted as the most immoral regime in history, for the purposes of social soapboxing. That's casual Nazi sympathising. Identifying and removing casual forms of discrimination and bigotry are so on point right now. There is no excuse in leftist circles, as ignorance is also a form of entitlement. Entitlement. The worst. Apologies if your computer is a 30 tonne ENIAC and you use the internet using punch cards, but everyone else using a digital computer is of negative current moral stating. No position to preach. Shockers, every single one, happy to use Nazi technology to watch a goat sing Taylor Swift. If you want to preach about morals, an alternative internet using ethically sourced twine and lima bean abacus is your go. This here wild west digital internet ain't no place for a moral preachin'. If computers and the internet were people, Amal Clooney would have them over barrels in the Hague while wearing an effortlessly chic lemon number. Yuh.
If only he could have used his evil genius for niceness.
I am shocked and kind of disappointed at the survey results here.
When the question for the poll is
Will you be supporting the boycott (by not buying Streets' icecream)?
More people might be voting No. After all why should an industrial action affects my ice cream buying habits? And what would "not buying the ice cream" even be able to achieve? However if you ask
Do you sympathise with Streets' workers potential pay-cut?
I am sure a lot more people will vote yes.
That is an excellent point.
I'd assume they were being overpaid.
But am banning it anyway, as they're going too far.
The award isn't that much above minimal wage which is terrible.
Award/minimal wage should be something that is temporary for certain low skilled jobs not permanent
Was looking to buy calipos, but saw they were Peter's so bought Bulla
Many workers such as childcare workers are paid to the award and not a dollar more. Even after a decade plus of service.
P.S. Factory floor workers (not team leaders/management) on 67k + are taking the piss.
Yep. Would be interested to see the qualifications/experience required for that $67k.
Who the hell can even buy a house at $67k though?
Crazy house prices are not necessarily the employer's fault, tho
I've no idea why you think that. The minimum wage is exactly that. The award rates are exactly that. Why you think they are supposed to be "temporary" I have no idea.
This is my problem with it… How will workers benefit from a boycott?
They might benefit from a huge public awareness campaign… Or the workers could do go slow campaigns… All sorts of industrial approaches…
But boycotting won't force the fair work association to be fair… It's already stacked towards employer groups terminating agreements cf Murdoch uni as a bargaining tool…
So if it's to make street's feel ashamed, publish the salaries of their chief execs who want to get rid of the EBA. Publish the annual profits. Show how the workers are getting screwed but don't give the employers an even better reason to say, right, redundancies are coming because we lost a quarter of our income over summer while our competitors raked it in.
I'm all for an EBA that protects current conditions. Do not screw the workers. But don't screw your membership out of their own jobs either.