Hi all
Firstly let me say I am happy that currently I still have full time work.
Just wondering if anyone else has had a circumstance where their employer has asked all staff to take a 20% pay cut, but keep the same hours - as oppoyto a 20% wage cut by dropping to 4 days instead.
Thanks
Work Reducing Wages by 20% - Same Hours
JuryWheel on 22/04/2020 - 15:58
Comments
Better way of saying the partners will still get almost their full cut.
Nah, their cut from the profit is reduced as revenue goes down. If margin is the same and revenue is down, profit must be down.
Also gross margin is not the same thing as profit, profit would be substantially less.
Apologies if this has already been covered, but what happens to your entitlements if you're made redundant while on reduced pay? Are you paid out at the lower rate?
This is a question for the Firm one works for. I understand the Big 4s (not sure if all) have made a commitment to pay redundancies and leave entitlements at full rates even though they is a haircut staff are taking.
So instead of reducing hours they're cutting your pay and getting more out of you. Little guy loses and the company wins.
I have been given 50% reduction in hours. It’s sucks but that’s the reality. Working half my usual hours and half salary for next 2-3 months.
Main concern here would be whether there's an end date specified. Aka dip in salary for 3 months, in writing.
If not, don't be surprised if they keep you at this suppressed wage beyond this.
Also entitlements - will this affect your existing leave entitlements?
Staff taking leave would be paid at reduced rates during this period.
Hi op, that sucks but I guess as you say the silver lining is no stand down.
It's interesting to know it's not just the big 4 doing this. What state are you in? Is your firm in many states?
Also got the note for 20% reduction in salary (one day unpaid leave per week).
I refused it. As workload has remained the same and actually increased.
The employment contract I signed doesn't mention anything about getting paid less for working the same / more hours.
Will see when they apply pressure to accept.
Should really contact Fairwork.
Did your employer apply for job keeper and are eligible? Fairwork amended their rules temporarily to allow them to do this due to jobkeeper
They are probably not eligible because the revenue hasn't dropped more than 30% :).
Spot on.
Yes. But at the same time I and my colleagues are paid well above award wage. So I'm ok in taking a temporary cut. Everyones circumstances are different though.
We are entering a deflationary cycle.
Just like fuel, you will start to see many other prices falling.
So a 20% cut in pay will be offset by lower prices, especialy in property going forward.
And under COVID-19 ZERO socializing equals more money in your pocket anyway
But the price of groceries has gone up!
We can that QE by the RBA for that.
In the same boat here. It is also for an indefinite period. They say they'll review monthly and revert salaries to 100% "as soon as they can", but won't provide any details re how that is assessed. Also, they are making the cuts due to "anticipated" loss of revenue due to difficulty in collecting $ from clients, but haven't actually experienced this yet. However, they are implementing the reduction now and will no doubt keep it in place until they think the firm's financial situation is back to pre Covid-19 (ie not when they anticipate things will be back to normal - so 2 different standards between when it is implemented and when it is lifted - to the employee's detriment). Don't get me started on the other reasons why it is flat out wrong to impose this on staff, at least in the case of my firm.
Anyway, as we are not under an award, they can't vary our contracts unilaterally and must get our permission (although they are doing this by saying we will infer you agree unless you say otherwise). To their shock, I've said otherwise - I've said OK for 3 months, but then come back to me for further permission. Basically, I don't trust the promise that you will lift the reduction when appropriate. Sorry, but working for a huge company with many, many partners, I know 99% of the partners have their own interests at heart, not their employees. I'm prepared to help get the company through this time if it is actually necessary, but we haven't even seen any evidence it is necessary yet. So I'll given them the benefit of the doubt for 3 months, and then I'll need proof.
Did your employer agree to this?
Not yet, but because I've not consented to their proposal, they either have to pay me my normal salary or agree to MY proposal. (They can obviously try and make me redundant - but I'm busy so they wouldn't be able to legitimately make me redundant and they know this.)
What I learnt during the GFC is that they don't make you redundant, they make the position redundant. During the GFC we had 4 Senior Engineers in our team, they decided they only needed 3. It wasn't the person who was least busy that got let go. It was the one who caused too many issues for their manager. The redundancy was above board because it was the position that needed to be let go of. They redistributed that persons work to others in the team. Its just they took an opportunity to clear house. So I wouldn't be too confident even if you are busy.
@Name: It isn't legal to use the threat of redundancy to force workers to agree to a pay cut though.
@trapper: I never said it was? Just saying that if your boss has a choice of someone they like and someone they don't, they'll get rid of the person they don't.
In saying that though, I'd prefer a business be open and say look, we've got two choices. Everyone can opt to take a cut, or i'm going to have to let people go.
I've been through both, during the GFC there was no option for reduced pay they just decided to announce redundancies.
This time round the company (1,600 staff) is asking people to take a cut for 3 months instead, they acknowledge its not all sectors of the business that are suffering but said they're doing it to avoid people losing their jobs. My section wasn't one that was suffering. We got aggregated feedback after the voluntary cut, 85% of staff took the offer to help the wider team out. Everyone suffers a little instead of a few suffering a lot. The agreement only went to HR and each individual person's choice was not divulged to management so that staff have confidence that it won't affect their own employment. I'm not like the guy from Deloitte, and i'm proud i work for a company that is caring enough that 85% of people would volunteer to get on board to help their colleagues out.
For anyone in the same or similar boat, this post by an employment lawyer I know is VERY helpful and raises matters I had not even considered - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/opt-out-pay-cut-carly-stebbin…
Reduce rate doesn't sound right. We started with 1 week on/.off(full pay). Then moved to the off week being paid leave, then moved to 1 week of unpaid (on the off week) and now will have the job keeper coming hopefully, so everyone is paid on the off week again.
The on/off week is due to safety, so we can operate if one team gets hit with corona.
This sucks imho. A 20% pay cut should mean a four day week.
If there isn't enough work coming in to pay the staff full wages, then there isn't enough coming in to need the staff working full time.
That's some BS right there. Your company is using the situation as an excuse to cut your salary. They can only do that if YOU agree to cut your hours accordingly. Talk to your union (if you're not in one bloody well JOIN ONE)
A fair day's wage for a fair day's work. FULL STOP
Sounds easier for the place to just go bankrupt than to try to get people to work for less. Not worth the hassle or effort.
Contact your union
no union
time to make one
Never trust a bean counter. Beans (and golf clubs) are more important than people.
Answer to your question is that a lot of firms, including law firms are doing this.
Some partners at these law firms have given their comments about this practice. The Employer can ask that staff agree to a pay cut, and staff can choose to agree or not. Often this framed as, if all staff don't agree to take a pay cut, we will need to look at other ways to cut costs.
The Employer can't unilaterally decide to pay everyone 20% less for the same amount of work.
Reducing your salary is completely legal as long as it doesnt reduce it below the award rate and both parties agree.
Yes there are businesses that are being greedy during this period but I provide HR services to a lot of small businesses and they seriously are in survival mode. They need to make these cuts so that you actually have a job in a few months time.
How is it completely legal if they don't get the consent from the employee? I sign a contract with a fixed numeration and hours. They can't just change the contract unilaterally.
Did you miss the last 4 words of the first sentence? "And both parties agree"
If you don't agree, you'll probably be made redundant as either:
1. The business cant sustain you in the current climate (Honest businesses)
2. They don't want someone like you on their team (Honest or dishonest business)
In general, companies can't do that without employee's agreement unless there is a special clause in your contract allowing it.
https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/why-firm…
"If one party wants to change something, that's a fundamental term [of a contract] and you need the agreement of the other party" - Quoted AFR (in case you can't access the article)
You can disagree with the cut.
You can disagree with the cut.
Then you get a 100% pay cut.
They would have to go through the process to make the position redundant and payout accordingly at full rate. You have to remember it would suck that few months down the track, they still can make you redundant AND pay you at lower rate for everything including your annual leave.
Or they sack you now, and find one of the hundreds of thousands out of work and pay them minimum wage?
I'm worst, I've been forced to take a 40% paycut (2 days) while still working 5 days a week
Name and shame
How are they forcing you to take a 40% pay cut?
by reducing my working days from 5 days to 3 days and not reducing my workload.
Are they asking you to take a pay cut or are they telling you that they’re going to sack you if you don’t take a pay cut?
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I think that perhaps this is the wage correction that Australia needed to have. The fact is (and I've worked overseas for many years), wage growth in Australia (thanks primarily to the mining boom), was out of touch with the rest of the world, and many white and blue collar jobs were paying silly amounts of money. All this did was drive the cost of living up, and line the pockets of the really wealthy people and corporations. Hopefully this correction will see an end to the Australia tax that we've all grown accustomed to. No one personally wants to see their pay packet shrink, and everyone thinks they are worth more money than they are getting paid right now, but on a world scale, we really aren't. I know in my line of work, the wages in the UK are roughly half of what I earn. I know the same applies to most trades too (and the pay gap is often even bigger than that).
You're right. About it being an unpopular opinion. The rest is wrong,.
Or perhaps you're ignorant about the rest of the world? A tradie earning $150-200k is pretty unheard of in most of the world. A white collar shit kicker office worker making $150k? A specialist doctor in private practice making $1m+ a year? All of these figures are silly when you look at wages in other countries. I don't want my wage to drop, but realisitically, the wages we are on were always going to be unsustainable in the long term. It's just that we got used to the trickle on effects of the mining boom.
Wrong again.
Especially about those salaries. There are outliers but if you think "shit kicker" office workers are typically making $150k, I'm not the one ihat's ignorant. Find somewhere other than right wing media articles to get your salary data. $50k is more typical. https://au.indeed.com/salaries/office-worker-Salaries
@[Deactivated]: Thanks for telling me what you think of the worth of your degree. In any case I provided you with a link to something more credible than a single annecdote and I mentioned outliers. Was your grad salary right in the middle of the tech boom and are you in tech perchance? If so, if you haven't noticed, the tech boom is long over.
Here's another link
https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Office_Clerk%2C_Gen…
Average Office Clerk, General Hourly Pay in Australia in Sydney:
Hourly Rate AU$17 - AU$30
Total Pay AU$35,366 - AU$61,469Up to $61k in our most expensive city.
A garbage collector does make a little more (about $5k/year), so you were kinda right there, for a refreshing change. You'd hope they make something extra for the risk, physical, labour, and the horribly unsociable hours. You won't find many 65 year old garbage collectors.
https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/garbage-collector/au…Hope you're respectful to them. It's a critical job in every sense. You don't need to drown in your own garbage.
You gonna throw another anecdote at me? Perhaps your assessment of the worth of your degree is fair after all. Try arguing with facts, not feels.
@syousef: If you think payscale.com is an accurate reference for wages, you're grossly mistaken.
You criticise the 'right wing media' as a reference, but think that the top link in your google search is a credible link, this is an example of a more realistic wage for a garbage collector:
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6049678/striking-garb…
Here's some better (but flawed) information from the ATO for high earners
https://www.ato.gov.au/Media-centre/Media-releases/2016-17-T…
Why is it flawed? Because those figures are the earners present to the ATO, income splitting, trusts, etc probably halve the actual figure most of the top earners earn by the time the ATO gets their slice.
An office clerk is a liberal interpretation of a white collar job, white collar implies a graduate job. Accountants, Economists, Actuaries etc.
The 18 year kid who gets the photocopying and coffees isn't really a good example of an average officeworker's wage.
Instead of throwing veiled personal attacks at me, and stupid sayings like 'facts not feels', maybe you should realise that your personal wage isn't reflective of society, just your worth.
@[Deactivated]: You keep using examples of the highest earners and top achievers and presenting them as typical. What is wrong with you?
No seriously. The very first line of the article is "The company that holds the contract to collect Canberra's waste says its drivers are among the best paid in the industry". Yeah a Canberra times article is a much better indicator according to you of the average wage than actual statistics compiled by recruiters. Again WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Oh I forgot you consider it a personal attack when I call you on your garbage "facts"? There's nothing wrong with the data. The problem is YOU misusing it. That's not personal. I'm about as familiar with you as I am with seeing toilet paper on a supermarket shelf, buddy.
When I went through school in the early to mid 90s, actuary was one of the top 5 jobs sought and the grades you required to get into a course were ridiculously high.
Do you even know what the word "average" means? Stop wasting my time!
@syousef: Oh look another personal attack. There’s nothing wrong with me, but someone who feels they need to attack a person because of what they are arguing? Typical behaviour that seems to stem from ultra left fanatics. And the data set for payscale.com is questionable to say the least. Look up police officers for example, the average wage on the site is actually lower than the publicly available enterprise agreement. Unless you believe that all police officers get the same wages as recruits. Listen, I understand that you’re probably pretty angry that you seem to have a low wage in a time of ridiculous wage growth, I mean what else could elicit such a scathing and emotional reaction? But rest assured, with the impending economic collapse, we’ll all end taking big pay cuts in a best case scenario.
@[Deactivated]: So let's get this straight: You think calling someone an ultra-left lunatic is perfectly reasonable and not a personal attack. But asking someone what the hell is wrong with them when they present outliers as averages is? You complain about the quality of my data while presenting the worst possible data you can find. You're absolutely right I'm going to ask what's wrong with you!
And what is "Listen, I understand that you’re probably pretty angry that you seem to have a low wage in a time of ridiculous wage growth,"?
I don't have a low wage, I'm not complaining about my wage, and at this point I haven't had a cut (although I certainly won't be getting a rise). So not only is that you getting personal you total hypocrite, but you're basing it on faulty assumptions about me. I just happen to think that begging to be paid less is moronic and can only lead to a race to the bottom and virtual slavery. Oh look I'm a left wing nut - I want fair wages for fair work!You have to make sense if you want to have a discussion. And you have to be able to tell the difference between a personal attack where you call someone a lowly paid left wing lunatic, and questioning what is wrong with someone presenting extreme cases as averages. Until you are capable of that, leave me the hell alone, you utter troll.
@syousef: And more personal attacks. You can’t help yourself. If you want a discussion, learn to argue without attacking the person, or putting words in their mouth. No one called you a lunatic, (But it’s funny that you jumped to that). Just because you think the first link that shows up on google is strong data, that doesn’t make it true. I think the ATO is a much better source than payscale.com, for reasons stated, and ignored. You’re angry, I get it, and you’re ignorant about wages in the rest of the world, I get that too. Maybe travel a little, do some actual research, and take some time off to calm down and relax. You’re going to blow a gasket if you keep on with your ranting.
@[Deactivated]: You can't address a single point I make. You just make your own personal attacks and yell "personal attack!!!"
GO AWAY.
@syousef: You’re accusing me of doing exactly what you’re doing. You’re not making points at this stage, you’re ranting. And there’s no need for caps in here chief, we’re all friends.
@[Deactivated]: I'm presenting data. You're presenting just outliers and exaggerated anecdotes. You can't tell the difference apparently.
Most of the data at employment agencies is going to be based on ABS, ATO data and the real world data on their own employment files. It isn't in their interests to present garbage data.
But if you want real world ATO data, go directly to their own web page which makes an UTTERLY LIE out of your claim that $150k is the average salary for a white collar "shit kicker".
https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Australian-Taxation-Office/salarie…
Popular Jobs AVERAGE SALARY SALARY DISTRIBUTION
Interpreter
40 salaries reported
$94,592 per year
$38,000 - $171,000Tax Specialist
24 salaries reported
$110,291 per year
$34,000 - $218,000Delivery Driver
10 salaries reported
$143,386 per year
$37,000 - $300,000Director
11 salaries reported
$136,046 per year
$36,000 - $179,000Chief Risk Officer
21 salaries reported
$84,690 per year
$43,000 - $157,000Management AVERAGE SALARY SALARY DISTRIBUTION
Director
11 salaries reported
$136,046 per year
$36,000 - $179,000Team Leader
15 salaries reported
$100,003 per year
$36,000 - $179,000Chief Strategy Officer
12 salaries reported
$100,745 per year
$36,000 - $179,000Program Officer
13 salaries reported
$62,282 per year
$36,000 - $179,000Data Manager
11 salaries reported
$88,655 per year
$36,000 - $179,000Business Analyst
15 salaries reported
$90,752 per year
$34,000 - $181,000Intelligence Analyst
11 salaries reported
$93,415 per year
$34,000 - $181,000Data Analyst
7 salaries reported
$94,497 per year
$34,000 - $181,000Information Security Analyst
7 salaries reported
$85,798 per year
$34,000 - $181,000Business Intelligence Analyst
7 salaries reported
$114,049 per year
$34,000 - $181,000Tax Specialist
24 salaries reported
$110,291 per year
$34,000 - $218,000Finance Officer
6 salaries reported
$80,986 per year
$34,000 -$218,000Internal Auditor
5 salaries reported
$153,244 per year
$34,000 - $218,000Tax Accountant
3 salaries reported
$79,562 per year
Min and max salaries are hidden when we have fewer than 5 salariesPayroll Officer
3 salaries reported
$71,182 per year
Min and max salaries are hidden when we have fewer than 5 salariesAll Australian Taxation Office - Accounting salaries
Community & Social Service AVERAGE SALARY SALARY DISTRIBUTION
Interpreter
40 salaries reported
$94,592 per year
$38,000 - $171,000Liaison
3 salaries reported
$72,837 per year
Min and max salaries are hidden when we have fewer than 5 salariesBanking & Finance AVERAGE SALARY SALARY DISTRIBUTION
Chief Risk Officer
21 salaries reported
$84,690 per year
$43,000 - $157,000Revenue Analyst
7 salaries reported
$84,897 per year
$43,000 - $157,000Director of Strategy
5 salaries reported
$135,239 per year
$43,000 - $157,000Procurement Specialist
4 salaries reported
$84,369 per year
Min and max salaries are hidden when we have fewer than 5 salariesProcurement Manager
3 salaries reported
$107,168 per year
Min and max salaries are hidden when we have fewer than 5 salaries@syousef: Keep on yelling, that will make it more true. You’re right, indeed.com is a much more reliable source than pay scale.com. This argument isn’t going anywhere, because you’re going to live in the mistaken belief that everyone earns $50k and will find as much data from questionable sources as you can to support your point, and anything that challenges that, whether it’s from the ATO or even an enterprise agreement will just get yelled down in another rant that devolves into personal abuse. I mean from your own example above, an internal auditor fits the description perfectly. But we’ll just ignore that and instead we’ll just use a ‘liaison’ whatever that is, as an example of an office worker, excuse that fits your narrative better. I think you need to go back to original post, because you’re concentrating on average wage, which I never mentioned. I was from the out set talking about examples of wages that people earn and how they are disproportionate to the rest of the world. I’m not including graduate wages or people who are in the first year, because that’s not representative, and skews the average. I’m talking about what people can and do earn, shown by the ranges on your very own ATO link. I mean delivery drivers earning $300k? That’s ridiculous for a completely unskilled job.
@[Deactivated]: I'm sorry which part of the data I presented isn't true?
At no point did I say that "everyone earns $50k". So you know what you can do with your straw man. How many factual misrepresentations can you cram into your blocks of text? It's impressive.
And again with the outliers "delivery drivers earning $300k?" What specialized kind of delivery we're talking about I wonder? Please show me where I can apply for such a job. I mean it's not my field but I could sure use such a large pay rise. Could be someone transporting nuclear material or something else requiring years of study to transport in tact for all you know but because they're "just a lowly delivery driver" they can't be worth that amount. Could be a mine worker. You accuse me of being upset at my lot in life but every single time you're presented with salary data, you pick the absolute top value with no other knowledge of the situation and cry bloody murder.
You have to be trolling. No one is THAT oblivous to their own hypocrisy and so utterly incapable of following a train of thought surely, nevermind a uni grad who claims to have been paid top dollar right out of uni.
@[Deactivated]: I have backed my argument up with facts, buddy. You refuse to. You just keep pulling the highest salary you can find and crying bloody murder.
$77k IS pretty damn close to top dollar for a graduate, especially if it was some time ago. Do I really need to pull out those figures as well? You'll just ignore them as well won't ya. But here ya go. Go on, tell me how inaccurate these are too. Oh look you can make another 15% or so IF you're willing to do FIFO or live at a mine.
https://gradaustralia.com.au/on-the-job/what-is-the-average-…
You are quite literally embarrassing yourself.
@syousef: No, you’re embarrassing yourself by presenting the first thing you find on google as unchallengeable facts, by spending half your posts attacking me personally, and completely ignoring any information presented to you. Your fixed mindset is probably the source of your real frustration.
@[Deactivated]: Having read over the thread, the only one embarrassing themselves in it you Burner - you clearly have a "fixed mindset" that is resistant to the facts of income in this country.
There are lots of outliers, but they're just that, and not representative of what most people earn. The median income (May 2018) for full time employees was ~78k. Most of the stats that you see are means, which are significantly distorted by extreme high earners.
It's definitely possible to come out as a graduate at ~$77k and go upward from there (that's probably about right for a software developer, my industry) but it's not the normal case. It's also true that Australia does have reasonably high wages, but that's not a bad thing. And it's also true that we have a crap tax system that often lets those with a lot minimise their taxable income, however the stats above are not on taxable income, just weekly earnings, and the loopholes are relatively inaccessible to those that earn their income as an employee.
"All of these figures are silly" I agree.
How does 'paying silly amounts of money' to employees 'line the pockets of the really wealthy people and corporations'?
It's the complete opposite. Really wealthy people and corporations want wages to go down, not up, because then their expenses are lower and they can keep more of the money that employees make for them.
Because it raises the prices of everything. Trickle down economics (trickle up as well). The cost of living in Australia is ridiculously high. It’s the corporations and billionaires who supply us with those
Goods and services.Hilariously bad.
You appear not to understand basic principles of economics.
First, trickle down economics has been debunked by many, many economists. See, for example, this paper by the IMF: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I…
I'm happy to provide you with many, many more citations if you'd like.
Second, corporations and billionaires do not seek to raise the cost of wages, they seek to lower them.
Why? Because the lower the wages they have to pay, the greater their profit margin.
Think about it for just a second to see how wrong you are. On your incorrect view, Toyota pays it employees higher wages in the hope that Microsoft will also pay its employees higher wages so Microsoft employees will have more money to spend on Toyota cars.
On the correct view, Toyota pays its employees as little as it can get away with in order to retain as much income from car sales as it can.
@vetopower: Trickle down economics obviously hasn’t been debunked, or half the nations of the world wouldn’t be issuing stimulus cheques. But I’m sure your cherry picked google results know more than the US government and the Australian government.
Wages are dictated by the society. Toyota don’t pay high wages in Australia because they are hoping for some kind of trickle down, they do it because they have to. It’s a price dictated by the generally high wages here, which are a product of the afore mentioned mining boom.
Toyota isn’t a great example of predictors pricing, because most of their sales come from the bottom of the market, but if you look at Mercedes, BMW, Porsche; they all charge ridiculous amounts for their cars here, because it’s what the market will sustain, and they each have an individual monopoly, thanks to import laws. A Porsche in Australia for example costs 2-3 times what it does in the UK (which has higher overall taxes on a car). The reason? High wages here mean that people are willing to pay that much. Porsche makes huge profits here because of this.
@[Deactivated]: The errors just keep on coming.
A stimulus package isn't trickle down economics in action. In fact, it is the complete opposite. It is a combination of payments to middle and low income individuals (not high income individuals) and payments to corporations that are at risk of going bankrupt (eg Virgin). Trickle down economics would suggest giving money to high income individuals and well-off corporations.
Your argument is completely inconsistent.
Before you were saying employers paid high wages and this benefitted wealthy people and corporations: 'many white and blue collar jobs were paying silly amounts of money. All this did was drive the cost of living up, and line the pockets of the really wealthy people and corporations'.
Now you are saying employers are forced to pay high wages: 'Toyota don’t pay high wages in Australia because they are hoping for some kind of trickle down, they do it because they have to.'
Why would a corporation be forced to pay high wages if high wages 'line the pockets of the really wealthy people and corporations'? Surely they would voluntarily pay high wages if high wages mean they 'line the[ir] pockets' LOL.
@vetopower: Wages in some fields in Australia are 'too high' however compared to a number of nations around us thus is why we dont have much manufacturing and industry out side of mining and agriculture.
NOT MANY people are earning over 100k - https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-much-do-you-need-to…
ABS - a reliable source has the full time income at $1261 (~65k a year im also not sure if this includes superannuation im assuming it doesn't)
I always make the argument wages arent too high it is taxes that are the problem and a consistent run of self serving MPs/Governments that have wasted the wealth Australia should have.
Big business doesnt want to invest in Australia yes because we have high wages but it is more because we have high taxes take Ireland a tax heaven with little to not natural resources they export almost nothing but have an average wage of 23 Euros (~$38AUD - 75k pa) https://www.thejournal.ie/rish-workers-earn-an-average-of-e2…
Our government has wasted the wealth we should of reinvested during the mining boom - taxes should be about half what they are now esp income tax (the anti productivity tax)
The tax free threshold should be 25k and no one should be taxed more then 25% even if you are making millions to encourage people to keep working instead we have a system that hurts our best more important workers ie Doctors, Engineers etc - To counter any losses raise GST to 20% - then get rid of all tax loop holes have a flat system to stop multinationals from ripping us off.
It also saves millions on admin costs of chasing lost tax dollars
So no wages are not too high they are exactly where they are based on the factors of our economy they will likely see a slow growth or negative growth period due to COVID19 but real issue in Australia is tax and the government needs to make rebuild the tax system or will be in recession for a while
Doesn't it cancel out?
If wages are high, and cost of living is high, then it's the same as if wages were low and cost of living was low. You've made the same adjusment on both sides of the equation.ie
3x=3y is the same as x=y once you simplify it.Sounds to me like you just want other people to be paid less, so that it aligns with your 'feelings' about what a dollar is worth.
Got a 20% pay cut as well but I am working 1 day less. Kinda makes it ok.
20% pay cut, but keep the same hours
Surely that is better than joining the queue in front of Centrelink?
It's also better than being eaten by a lion, but that doesn't make it fair.
Unhappy workers have the choice of quitting in protest.
What's your point? OP wants to be paid the wage his employer agreed to pay him (eg 100% pay for 100% work or 80% pay for 80% work).
@vetopower: Many businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Workers that still have a job should be grateful. Those that aren't could easily end up like this.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/533064@whooah1979: If the owners of the business are not smart enough to run a business that maintains a healthy surplus to use when unforeseen events occur, they should take the money out of their wages, not the OP's.
@vetopower: There are plenty of people looking for work in this current environment. Workers that are not team players may find themselves in the same situation.
@whooah1979: You once again have it around the wrong way. Bosses who are expecting employees to work 100% of the time for 80% pay are the ones not being team players.
@vetopower: The employer wants to keep the team and have asked them to take a pay cut. This will allow them to keep their job. The alternative is to start sacking them.
@whooah1979: If they still require employees to work 100% of the time, they should pay them 100% of their wage.
The fact that employees are still required to work 100% of the time suggests the employer is flat out lying to the employees about a downturn in revenue.
Employers lie to employees all the time. Think about the hundreds of millions of dollars that employers have stolen from employees in recent years.
@vetopower: The business isn’t doing so good if the directors have to take a pay cut. The workers can either play along or stand their ground. They shouldn’t be surprised if they are the ones to go first.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/532674#comment-8608594
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/532674#comment-8609715
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/532674#comment-8608599
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/532674#comment-8608545
Fair enough to drop hours by the same rate but bullshit to make people work full time for 20% less.
I think a pay cut in line with hours is fair. A cut to pay and not to hours is not. Either you have the billable hours or you don't.
Same thing has happened to me. Software development, startup company
Don't agree hourly rate cut, you leave entitlement on termination will be deflated.
If you are on an employment contract, enforce it. I don't think pay cut while working same hours is legal.
My opinion is do not sign any agreement that is not favourable to you.
To some people redundancy may be the same as winning a lottery.
I never work with awards situation, so no idea about awards.
If there's less work, how come you're still required 5 days? If there's not less work, how come you're getting a 20% pay cut?
Too many comments to tell if the same joke was said, but I'd be working 20% less efficiently.
I thought most paper pushers are working from home now anyway? It will be a lot more frustrating to work the same hours for less pay once lockdown is somewhat eased.
I believe I'm the lucky one amongst the unlucky ones - taking a 20% cut but no need to attend work.
FYI- I work in aviation industry ground service, all our flights have been suspended…
Interesting 20% pay cut seems spreading to all business like another pandemic!!
So far both myself and partner have taken 10% reductions (not signed or agreed to anything but its what both companies have done), in addition there were no pay rises or any other increase to be carried on this year, promotions have all been pulled as has that increase.
So working at last years salary -10% + the loss of what was to be gained this year, another few % on top of that.
Both of us are still working as long if not longer hours being WFH.
Sucks to hear you're getting 20% OP, I'm hoping they don't decide they need to trim more later in the year, especially being a global company with head offices in US/EU which will be suffering hard.Well I just secured a 6 month temp role which I'll be starting next week, although I've been out of work for over 4 months now. Lucky enough in my industry there are jobs coming up…
congrats!
Thank you! Very relieved to have found something in times like these.
my friend was the opposite, quit job just before the outbreak, now of course unemployed…
Gross margin != profit. Profit should go down by more as a lot of what the gross margin is spent on is fixed costs i.e. rent and utilities.