High Unemployment and Fruit Picking

nightqueen on 09/09/2020 - 10:39
Last edited 09/09/2020 - 10:40

With unemployment reaching 10% plus and more than 2 million Australians out of work, there seems to be plenty of jobs in fruit picking and at the abattoirs. With our immigration significantly reduced and lots of backpackers leaving australia. We have jobs available, have low entry requirements and low levels of training.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-09-07/backpack-in-you…

Do we need to increase the pay of these 'unwanted' jobs? We might face significant price rises of fruit and vegetables if they are left to rot due to a shortage of pickers.

Poll Options

  • 94
    Fruit picking or abattoir work & contribute to Australia GDP
  • 217
    Collect job seeker or job keeper and chill at home
Education & Work

Comments

                • serpserpserp on 11/09/2020 - 22:27
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  The ones they show up then do a terrible job so they will get fired which would then allow them to resume collecting welfare.

                  That is a bit of an assumption. There could be a high portion of those people that do a "terrible job" because they are not equipped to do such a job. They are not terrible on purpose "so they will get fired" they just may literally not mentally be able to handle it.

                  Government does not create policy to combat isolated incidence.

                  Really? Was this country being overrun by "boat people" before interesting changes happened there? Putting that aside (as that'll be unpopular here) how about when our pollies get "tough on crime" (in a relatively low crime rate country) or reducing medicare because it is putting such a strain on our "budget".

                  My point might be a long draw here, but quite frankly, government policy is often driven by what looks good in public perception. Nothing beats changing policy on "stopping those dole bludgers" who are basically faceless and such a minority that it truly affects no one. Oh except the actual "poor people" that the policy change indirectly affects.

                  But politicians have to look to be getting tough on someone. It is how they win votes.

                  those who contribute greatly to their own unemployment - think presentation, hygiene

                  Well that is a bit of a sweeping generalization right there. Have you ever talked to people who have presentation and hygiene problems? Fixing that issue often isn't as easy as mocking them into line, or simply telling them that is what they need to do. There are generally a lot of underlying issues at play.

                  but to imply that it is "only a few" is disingenuous

                  I'm not being disingenuous at all. I said "very little". Perhaps you can tell me how you have arrived at a figure above this and how that would not also be considered disingenuous.

                  • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 22:49

                    @serpserpserp:

                    That is a bit of an assumption. There could be a high portion of those people that do a "terrible job" because they are not equipped to do such a job. They are not terrible on purpose "so they will get fired" they just may literally not mentally be able to handle it.

                    Again, we can't measure intention. I use the scenario above because that is the best metric available.

                    Really? Was this country being overrun by "boat people" before interesting changes happened there?

                    Come on. Illegal immigration is hardly an isolated incidence. I mean, we even have a name for the specific way in which people are illegally entering.

                    Well that is a bit of a sweeping generalization right there. Have you ever talked to people who have presentation and hygiene problems?

                    Actually, I have. I still do. I work with people and some of them are from low SES groups. There are those that I can agree are helpless but the vast majority are not truly helpless. Many of them have substance abuse issues or simply cannot be bothered. I know that many will say, "you can't judge those facets" and I accept that but at some point, each of us takes personal responsibility.

                    I have personal problems too but if I started a habit of drinking which goes unchecked for 20 years, it doesn't make me "helpless". My peers that sought help, invested in family and friendship, etc. who go to work shouldn't have to pay for my bad decisions.

                    At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much I claim to know these people or how many of them I know, it is all counter argued by "it is a sweeping statement", however, I urge you consider that everything about policy is a sweeping statement. It is policy, it is meant to apply indiscriminately.

                    Perhaps you can tell me how you have arrived at a figure above

                    I did. The whole comment above is about how neither of us has a figure worth referencing. It could be a few, it could be a lot. (You said very "little". Little refers to size, not quantity.) Since neither of us has a figure that can be taken seriously, the percentage of people in whichever category should remain irrelevant to policy.

                    So, we have the unemployed. Within this group is an unknown number of wilful and involuntary. Giving them money is supposedly the good thing to do. The money has to come from someone.

                    At what point is it okay to take from the potentially struggling to give to the potentially lazy?

      • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 16:47

        no australian is willing to put up with the conditions they are offering

        I do enjoy you pointing out Australians (who own the farms) offering conditions that Australians won't accept.

  • ThithLord on 09/09/2020 - 11:24
    +24

    Ah, yes. Some people expect unemployed people to break their leases, move away from family and friends to remote parts of Australia so they can take up extremely casual work with little workers rights, often exploited.

    • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 16:51
      +1

      Some people expect unemployed people

      True, where as employed people just willingly relocate to countries leaving family, friends behind for better pay and experience.

      • ThithLord on 09/09/2020 - 16:57
        +4

        where as employed people just willingly relocate to countries leaving family, friends behind for better pay and experience.

        Woooaaahhh people with the resources and willingness to forego building relationships with their family members are willing to relocate? Colour me surprised. I mean, your bog-standard cashier is often faced with these decisions to move overseas to work at Walmart in the USA.

        Oh, wait - it's normally FIFO and very high-income jobs that people generally reallocate for, yeah?

        • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 17:01
          -5

          Like high income jobs just fall into people's laps. Most of these highly paid people probably started from poor backgrounds therefore willing to work hard and relocate when offered. Company relocations you can always reject, plenty of people have.

          Got to start somewhere. The only dead beat career is the one where you starve to death.

          If you can make money you have a chance. Jack Ma couldn't even get a job at KFC but you got to start somewhere.

          Might not happen in this country yet, but you never know when government goes broke.

          • ThithLord on 10/09/2020 - 07:55
            +3

            @netjock: Suggesting we, as a society, should expect people to relocate and move away from family/friends/resources just to get a job is insane, dude. You've swallowed the capitalism pill, that's for sure.

            • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 09:49
              -2

              @ThithLord:

              Suggesting we, as a society,

              2000 years into AD and suggesting it has always not be an expectation to move away is just bending the facts.

              Look at India and China, how many migrant workers have they got? Poor Asian subcontinent workers in Singapore, Qatar, middle east. SE Asian people who work on cargo ships. But I guess we can exclude them from society.

              Look back at the 70s where Vietnamese refugees, 1940s post war migrants from Europe. Probably too much to ask they leave their families / friends and resources but they are not very bright obviously.

              People don't like it the idea even when we have cars, planes, internet, mobile phones. Oh how easy did the Greeks and Italian migrants of 1940s have it, we want a piece of that.

              We have just now come to accept you can stay wherever you want and be paid for the pleasure of looking for work.

              • ThithLord on 11/09/2020 - 11:15

                @netjock: Your entire argument rides on the appeal to Tradition, NetJock. We're not talking about the 30's, 40's or 70's. It's the current yr. I don't even know what your point is, so let's just leave it at that because, honestly, I can't in good conscious converse with capitalist boot-lickers.

                  • ThithLord on 11/09/2020 - 13:39
                    +1

                    @brendanm: I know you think you're smart and you've contributed, Brendan, but NetJock actually mentioned certain time periods - so me saying the current year is pre-acknowledging your cliche meme (hence why I said current year and not 2020), but even then - noting that it's 2020 is wholly relevant in the conversation.

                    Try again.

                • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 14:18
                  -1

                  @ThithLord:

                  Your entire argument rides on the appeal to Tradition, NetJock.

                  Tradition is human have always migrated for food or seasons. It is nature. It isn't even tradition.

                  We're not talking about the 30's, 40's or 70's. It's the current yr.

                  The last pandemic was 1918 and your point being? Is this the year that so exceptional that people can expect to sit still and someone else pay for their pleasure of finding a job. A lot of people have lost their jobs therefore can't afford to pay for someone else's leisure. Yet the government can borrow, but someone would have to pay.

                  I don't even know what your point is, so let's just leave it at that because,

                  Humans have always been migratory. People have migrated and taken their family, extended family across oceans before the internet, face time, skype, zoom etc. People are entitled to not move but just don't complain when you're not getting $100k on JobSeeker.

                  You notice there is no studies to show unemployment is good for health. Why would you stay where there is no jobs?

                  I can't in good conscious converse with capitalist boot-lickers.

                  Well, here comes the name calling. You know when Joseph and pregnant Mary went to Bethlehem, capitalism as we know it didn't even exist. Or when Moses parted the Red Sea to cross it. Guess they are capitalist boot lickers too in your books.

            • Dogsrule on 11/09/2020 - 10:31
              +2

              @ThithLord: What you call insanity, has been the reality of most of humanity for most of human history. We have always migrated to support our material needs, otherwise only one continent on the planet would be settled. That's partly why humans have been so successful - our ability to adapt to changing circumstances to survive. In our wealthy country, this ability to adapt can be used not only to survive, but to thrive - I know its certainly worked for me and people I know.

              I grew up in, and currently live in NSW, but worked at a SA minesite for years to accumulate a nest egg (and gain valuable skills) which has essentially set me up for life. Working hard picking fruit on a farm for 2k a week and banking the proceeds could set one up with a nice house deposit or similar very quickly indeed.

          • monkeyfood on 11/09/2020 - 09:15

            @netjock: and kim kardashian

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2020 - 11:37
    +17

    I've got the world's smallest violin out for pseudo-farmers, who cannot operate without slave labour in the form of migrants or peeps on working holiday visas desperate to extend their stay.

  • Drakesy on 09/09/2020 - 11:49
    +1

    It's not only fruit pickers who are experiencing this, pubs, cafes etc are all struggling to get their staff to return as who'd work when they can get $550 from the government for sitting at home playing their Xbox, similar can be said for the casuals on jobkeeper who weren't keen on coming in to work and were happy to be bumped down to jobseeker.

    The support system was broken when they implemented it. New Zealand smartly means tested it so you couldn't walk away with more money than you were making prior to covid in order to stop this exact situation. Our government failed to implement this, resulting in those who'd work 1 - 2 casual shifts a week walking away with $750. It's amazing they didn't forsee this in the rollout.

    • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 11:54
      +11

      Or those large corporate entities that availed of Jobkeeper payments (at taxpayer expense), and still managed to find enough money to pay very large executive bonuses.

      • Drakesy on 09/09/2020 - 11:59
        +1

        So true

        and dividends

        https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/jobkeeper-dividends-fail-pub-test-labor-20200811-p55kil|

        I don't know how a company can be "down 30%" year on year and still pay a dividend. It just doesn't make sense.

        Basically giving them free labour courtesy of the government and future generations.

        • serpserpserp on 11/09/2020 - 21:36
          +1

          I don't know how a company can be "down 30%" year on year and still pay a dividend. It just doesn't make sense.

          Simple. Because right now a business does not need to be down 30% to get JobKeeper. You can just apply and get it (if you "forecast" a drop in earnings back when it first started). Past September, yes you need to be down 30%.

          So from March to June some companies might have lost a little bit of money in sales, but if that company's biggest expense is labour (and usually it is) you get a nice cash inflow from the government to cover some of that. Better yet, if you are a company that likes to pay your workers minimum wage and casualise your workforce then you get rewarded with a JobKeeper payment that is actually larger than what your wages outgoings was!

          So some companies are making poor EBITDA earnings but are actually making a higher net profit from JobKeeper than regular trading! And given that dividend payout clauses are predominately based off of NPAT earnings, not even a lending bank or company board members are going to stop them from sending that money out the door.

          Liberal government policy at its finest.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 13:19

        Whilst I would like to think I would never personally do something like take money from the government when I don't need to, I would argue that to be fair, a business will look to claw back as much money as it can wherever it can.

        Most of the time, when businesses fail, government does not reimburse the risk takers and that's fair. The tax department only cares about policy, not individual circumstances. We as a society consider that to be fair so when a business which the policy is to be as financially successful as possible manages to benefit from government policy, why is it so sensationalized that they do?

        (I'm sure someone is going to reference bail outs. Bail outs are not made on a policy level. I am also against bail outs.)

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2020 - 12:04
      +5

      So the pubs didn't receive loyalty from their casual work force that have previously lived with uncertain conditions and stability? I'm shocked.

      • Drakesy on 09/09/2020 - 12:11

        The primary purpose of Jobkeeper was to tide the employees over while the business couldn't afford to pay them, ensuring they were looked after until they opened back up (the pubs and clubs could've easily stood them down pushed them onto jobseeker).

        It's when they're asked to return that they don't want to, and rightly so because the system was terribly thought out.

        Personally i don't blame the employees, it doesn't add up to go back to work, there's no incentive there. The program that was created to help workplaces re-open has done the opposite in many cases.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2020 - 12:54
          -1

          It's when they're asked to return that they don't want to,

          You believe everything Murdoch publishes do you?

          What you'll actually find is the case is that the majority of those pubs and cafes turfed those casual workers during the initial lockdown. Didn't pay them a cent. Who's to say they haven't obtained work elsewhere? Commenced study? Moved away/back home because they couldn't afford rent?

          • Drakesy on 09/09/2020 - 13:04

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Funny you would think that because I think Murdoch's papers are a load of crap.

            If they were turfed it would've been because they didn't meet the mandatory 12 month prior working requirement. 95% of my friends were kept on by their cafe/restaurant on jobkeeper after all, the business is effectively getting free/subsidised labour.

            And i'm explicitly talking about those who actively refused to return and would rather stay on welfare. Yes there were obviously those that found other jobs, commenced study, but they're not the people we're talking about.

            From my personal experience with other university aged and mid 20's hospitality workers they didn't want to return to work due to the lack of incentive, why work for a week for $200 more than sitting around playing xbox.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2020 - 15:48
              -1

              @Drakesy: Personal experience ≠ fact

              I have personal experience with multiple businesses exploiting jobkeeper to the border of legality, but I'm not using that to win this irrelevant argument.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 12:25

      I said this from the beginning, fixed JobKeeper payments is ridiculous, lazy and unfair. Heaps of people I know like you said, working a few shifts a week now getting $1500 a fortnight. It should've been percentage based, probably 70-80%.

  • brendanm on 09/09/2020 - 11:57
    +2

    People are too lazy to work, when they have money given to them to sit at home.

    • Reddich24 on 09/09/2020 - 12:13
      +9

      Yeh, it's selfish of them to not and try and find a job better suited to their qualification, they should just be grateful to do some menial labour and get paid a pittance.

      • brendanm on 09/09/2020 - 13:27
        +3

        Plenty of people with no skills and no job who would be perfect for this. Also, just because you are qualified in something, doesn't mean anyone has to make jobs for you. Doing gender studies at uni will still mean you are going to be working at KFC or picking fruit.

        • Reddich24 on 09/09/2020 - 13:43
          -1

          So why aren't you doing this job then, seems perfect for you. No one expects a job to be made for them, they apply for positions that are open. If I have a medical degree I am not wasting my time applying for jobs at KFC. Also not all qualifications are for gender studies, you ever try becoming a builder/ electrician just by asking someone to create the job for you?

          • brendanm on 09/09/2020 - 15:14
            +3

            @Reddich24: I have a job mate, thanks though. My point is that if everyone trains to be a doctor, not everyone is going to be able to be a doctor, as there simply aren't that many positions available. They will therefore have to do something "below them".

            • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 15:22
              +2

              @brendanm: Everyone that trains to be a doctor is able to be a doctor.

              It may not be in their preferred location, or area of interest, or the hours they want to stick to, but they can be a doctor.

              • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 15:32
                +5

                @GG57: Because it is a useful skill.

                The point brendanm is making is if an additional 100,000 doctors were to enter the workforce today, there would be at least some that will not be able to secure a related position.

                Should they just sit around waiting for a role?

                Then there are those who know that the job market isn't great for said qualification but chooses to start training regardless, perhaps a lifelong dream etc. They'd likely not find relevant employment.

                Because they aren't able to find relevant employment, should they be paid to do nothing when other jobs are available?

                • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 15:51
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: "…a related position"
                  Being a doctor is not restricted to working in a suburban practice, or hospital, or similar. The medical training provides life-saving skills that can be used in any number of countries or regions that have a shortage (some reports state a global shortage of 4.3 million physicians, nurses and other health professionals).

                  Apparently Australia will have a shortage of GPs by 2030, unless skilled migration is increased.
                  And even then, rural and remote areas will probably still not be covered.

                  • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 18:03
                    +3

                    @GG57: You're missing the point.

                    Just because someone has some training in something specific doesn't meant they are above/incapable/shouldn't do something that is needed.

                    Just because I want to be a marine biologist doesn't mean I should go get trained if there weren't any jobs available. If I did go invest the time and money and trained for it, it doesn't mean that once I am qualified, it is my right to work in that industry or collect benefits until I get the role I want.

                    • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 12:25
                      +5

                      @[Deactivated]: Glad your good decisions and hard work in education paid off for you, very genuinely.

                      But there's a slight air of what sounds like survivorship bias in your posts. If you performed a little (or a lot) worse at certain times on your educational path, or chose a career that happens to be in jeopardy (like pilots at the moment) I'd wager you'd be extremely unsatisfied if someone made the suggestion you personally go and pick fruit for $10 an hour.

                      Doesn't mean your points aren't valid, or your arguments aren't sound. But what you say comes across as "I don't care my life is pretty sweet and I deserve it, ergo if your life is not sweet you're getting what you deserve". Which doesn't follow logically, and doesn't sound too humane.

                      • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 12:36
                        +1

                        @ozbjunkie: Zero emotional component to my comment.

                        Whether I am sympathetic, empathetic or apathetic is immaterial to the concept above.

                        • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 12:40
                          +4

                          @[Deactivated]: Yes, the zero emotional component is the flippant and "don't care" tonality I was commenting on.

                          I understand the importance of emotionless decision making in personal life and in public policy. But I also recognise that pure rationality leads to conclusions which sometimes make me glad we are not purely rational beings.

                          • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 12:42

                            @ozbjunkie:

                            I also recognise that pure rationality leads to conclusions which sometimes make me glad we are not purely rational beings.

                            We (as a species) say we are glad we aren't purely rational because we don't have a choice.

                            It's like saying we are glad we are bound to die.

                            We cannot even conceive the alternative and for all we know, it is a much better alternative.

        • dmac on 11/09/2020 - 07:43

          I have many friends with 'real' degrees that have had to work retail because there were no jobs in the field that were said to be created. Universities choose how many students to let in, why is that not in line with how many jobs we need?

          If 5,000 students study paramedicine and you only need 1,000. How is it the students fault for choosing this degree, when the university has all the information and is essentially taking students money (and the governments), wasting years of their lives, putting them in debt and offering very little value in return.

          • brendanm on 11/09/2020 - 08:54

            @dmac: No, it is the students fault for not looking I to their chosen field, how competitive it is, how many jobs are available etc.

          • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 22:20
            +1

            @dmac:

            Universities choose how many students to let in, why is that not in line with how many jobs we need?

            Because many students will choose not to work in the relevant industry or may work abroad. It is not up to the universities to titrate their intake and effect supply in the great balance of supply and demand.

            If 5,000 students study paramedicine and you only need 1,000. How is it the students fault for choosing this degree

            Because they made the choice. They chose to pursue the degree. To a certain degree, some people caught in the scenario above (not specific to paramedics or otherwise) are just unfortunate. Some people take up training in a field that can become outdated or oversaturated overnight but these are far and few between. Ultimately, because we make the final decision and if it pays off we alone reap the rewards, we also bear the losses.

            university has all the information and is essentially taking students money (and the governments), wasting years of their lives, putting them in debt and offering very little value in return.

            This is nothing new.

            Gender studies, modern art, history of philosophy, dance interpretation… There are so many fields of study that are highly discretionary yet the tax payer, some struggling to survive, is paying for these courses.

            The government can intervene and remove or limit these courses/intake, however, I take issue with government making arbitrary decisions. To someone, history of ladders is as valuable as neurosurgery. I say let them decide (and also take responsibility for their decision).

    • LFO on 10/09/2020 - 18:58

      And you know that fact because …

      Only way to be sure of a fact is by own experience.

      And NOT everyone is equal.

      • brendanm on 10/09/2020 - 19:13

        What fact?

        • LFO on 11/09/2020 - 22:33

          People are too lazy to work, when they have money given to them to sit at home.

          Your post.

          • brendanm on 11/09/2020 - 22:38

            @LFO: That's a statement of fact. I have a job. Your comment makes no sense.

            • LFO on 12/09/2020 - 14:55

              @brendanm:

              I have a job

              Good.

              The satement was abut work not job.

              • brendanm on 12/09/2020 - 15:05

                @LFO: If you have a look at the number of people complaining about work for the dole, you see people don't like to work.

  • tsunamisurfer on 09/09/2020 - 12:03
    +9

    The poll confirms that the social safety net is too generous when they can simply turn their nose at employment.

    • Reddich24 on 09/09/2020 - 13:21
      +2

      Bear in mind you are polling a niche group of people, most of whom would also turn their nose at this employment. Also do you really think most people would not take a full time continuing job vs relying on welfare that the government can and will cut? Not everyone from the welfare pool is a bludger.

    • AustriaBargain on 09/09/2020 - 15:11
      +3

      The social safety net should keep people enriched enough to be basic level consumers, so industries that rely on them can continue to rely on them between jobs. We are moving towards Elon Musk branded robots doing all the work soon anyway and will need to pay people to be consumers in any case.

      • nightqueen on 09/09/2020 - 18:42

        I doubt Elon Musk can make a robot to do efficient fruit picking especially those delicate fruits like berries

        • greatlamp on 11/09/2020 - 12:40
          +1

          I don't. It's a repeatable task. The cost of the robot wouldn't be economical in farming, but robots handle delicate tasks in the manufacturing

      • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 19:24

        Where is this enrichment coming from? Robo taxes? I am not against automation. If automation puts us all out of a job and robos are owned by that 1 rich person, that one rich person would have to pay all of us to be consumers.

        No point everyone starving to death and the 1 rich person has all the money and all the robots producing for nobody. Unless they can monetise sea gulls and pigeons.

        • AustriaBargain on 10/09/2020 - 03:23
          +1

          You’re free to turn down or donate to charity your entitlement to universal income.

          • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 20:44

            @AustriaBargain: Considering the taxes I pay the entitlement if it ever happens is just a minor offset.

            • AustriaBargain on 11/09/2020 - 21:01
              +1

              @netjock: So you won't be donating it then.

              • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 21:09

                @AustriaBargain: Can't donate something I haven't got. If you understand how taxes work vs what I receive back I am already participating in the wealth transfer.

                How about you stop trying to make people look bad because you think arm twisting them to donate something that doesn't exist.

                • AustriaBargain on 11/09/2020 - 21:10
                  +1

                  @netjock: Ann Raynd pulled the same mental gymnastics to go back on her word and claim social security in her old age, after mismanaging her money when she was younger. All this stuff is all just hot air because every one of them who says it will go on to claim the handout if they need it to survive.

                  • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 21:20

                    @AustriaBargain:

                    Ann Raynd pulled the same mental gymnastics to go back on her word and claim social security in her old age

                    I have no idea who she is. I am sure I am not a blood relative. Why would you think someone else's word is the same as my word. I did not say I was going to donate it therefore cannot perform any mental gymnastics to take something that does not exist.

                    For the second time I suggest you stop doing your mental gymnastics to make other people look bad because you are looking pretty bad already.

                    Universal income and aged pension is two different things. Aged pension is means tested. Whatever you feel of other people's financial mismanagement I'd suggest you keep your mouth shut until you see the finishing line in life and sure your own money isn't going to run out.

                    All this stuff is all just hot air because every one of them who says it will go on to claim the handout if they need it to survive.

                    Think you need to get your facts straight. Hand out makes it seem like some kind of charity assuming the person hasn't paid in. If you are talking about legally entitled to and means tested aged pension the only moral duty is they said they won't take it which was stupid because you never know whether your investments could go bad. Remember people who invested in Lehman Brothers debt? If you invested in Bear Sterns and Bank of America debt then you would have been okay.

                    • AustriaBargain on 11/09/2020 - 21:22
                      +1

                      @netjock: And what will you do when the robots replace your job, or your kids jobs, or your grandkids jobs. You can't have enough money saved to weather your entire extended family through the automation revolution.

    • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 16:54
      +2

      Reminds me of the IT graduate who is driving a taxi for $45k a year because $43k graduate salary is not enough.

      People who stay unemployed because JobSeeker is generous are just fooling themselves.

    • LFO on 11/09/2020 - 22:35

      The poll confirms

      The poll confirms polls are useless as truthful source.

  • Quantumcat on 09/09/2020 - 12:12
    +13

    Not until the rate of pay is at least minimum wage and they don't exploit people by charging most of what they make in accommodation.

    They can't force people to move, they may have medical needs that mean they can't be far from hospital, or need to care for relatives, or need to be near their support system (eg mental health).

    • nickj on 11/09/2020 - 10:36
      +5

      This. Pay at least the minimum wage, and do something about the accommodation issue. Most farms are far away from people's normal homes, and the work is brief & highly seasonal, so it makes sense to provide accommodation and meals. If the work paid at least minimum wage, and basic but clean accommodation & food was say $20 a night, I'm sure lots of people would be happy to do it (heck, I'd mull it over, in part to help drop some kilos from the pandemic). But if you read some of people's experiences, it's often $11 or $12 an hour for cash-in-hand undocumented income that doesn't affect visas - yet for Australian workers that's an absolute rip off, because the visa is irrelevant, and the pay is massively worse because of our tax-free threshold + progressive tax scales, and as the cherry on top is being incentivized to commit a crime, namely: tax fraud.

      And people blame workers. I'm sorry, but at least 50% of the fault lies with the farms: If you can't make it work by paying people the minimum wage, and documenting it all to the ATO, and provide conditions that are acceptable to someone who wants to work but not be exploited, then you're not actually operating a viable reasonable legal business, you're operating at best a low-grade foreign labour exploitation enterprise, or at worst a criminal enterprise (by engaging in tax fraud and visa fraud). Either way, I have no sympathy whatsoever for you. You should just stop and go do something else, so that a legal & non-exploitative enterprise can take your place.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 12:31

        Multiple comments above saying they were getting 2-3k a week from fruit picking. I also have many family members in the business earning at least minimum wage.

        • nickj on 11/09/2020 - 12:48

          That's great! But there are also comments saying they earned less than the minimum wage. (especially if you factor in transport costs, accommodation costs so that you can be in the place to do the work, let alone cost of maintaining commitments elsewhere, etc).

          • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 12:55

            @nickj: Yeah I got to them after writing that comment haha. I guess the point is, look for a decent one.

            • nickj on 11/09/2020 - 14:10

              @[Deactivated]: Rather than workers being selective, I more take it as a case of there being a problem with compliance with paying the minimum wage. According to a 2017 study in Australia, it's a widespread problem. For example from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/i-was-bullied-and-underpaid-one-… : "[the study] found almost half of backpackers make $15 or less in their lowest paid job, and it's a similar statistic for international students, at 43 per cent." That's against a minimum wage of ~$18 or $19/hour. I don't think that speaks to a motivation problem from those employees, I think that speaks to businesses not complying with existing laws.

              On a personal note: when I was a teenager doing casual retail work during school holidays, I encountered this type of problem myself, with an employer who told me at the start of my first day that I would not be paid for training (illegal), and that I would thereafter be paid 60% of the min wage (also illegal), and when I called Fair Work during my lunch break and confirmed my suspicion that this was illegal, and politely and calmly told the manager they needed to pay me correctly, they immediately fired me (taking adverse action against workplace rights is also illegal). So I absolutely believe reports of underpayment, and I also believe that people usually only find out that they won't be paid correctly after they have already travelled to a workplace and started working.

              This underpayment & non-compliance problem was always there, but like so many other normally out-of-sight-out-of-mind issues (such as: downsides of casualisation and gig-ification of the workforce, under-funding aged care, under-resourcing of Victoria's health system, that our major trading partner is a totalitarian state that has epic tantrums unless everything goes their way, etc), the massive repercussions caused by COVID-19 in 2020 has just made these issues plain for all the world to see.

              • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 14:56

                @nickj: What I find with picking jobs (from family experience) is that the contractor who recruits people will pay what they think they will take and keep a good chunk for themselves. Obviously, backpackers and international students would still work for $15 because they're here to travel and will take what they can get. Same with internationals, they don't know about working rights and won't complain. Hell, even my family was earning well below minimum wage until more recently, now they're paid around $23 an hour with penalty rates and such. What I mean is, if businesses aren't complying with laws, quit and report them.

        • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 20:53

          Only ones making less than minimum wage is ones trying to put in minimum effort. I did it for a season and it was a good kick up the backside to get a good desk job.

          If my desk job paid less than fruit picking I'd go fruit picking. Especially on the low income end. The difference between JobSeeker and minimum wage is basically deep poverty vs borderline poverty.

          Don't forget working saves you money by tying up your time and stops your wondering and mindlessly consuming.

          • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 21:20

            @netjock: Are you talking about Jobseeker how it is now or how it is normally ?

            • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 21:21

              @[Deactivated]: JobSeeker normal.

              • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 21:25

                @netjock: Do you think Jobseeker normal should be borderline poverty instead?

                • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 21:47

                  @[Deactivated]: I would not be expert on the matter.

                  Having grown up living in what I would called poverty (old weather board that was so cold I'd get the cold / flu like 3 times a year). I wouldn't want to return to that.

                  Having to work my back off to be above average salary and be able to save 50% after tax (with a mortgage and investment properties).

                  I would suggest other people try what they can. That includes going fruit picking if it makes their JobSeeker normal better (you can do $300 per fortnight without impacting entitlements).

                  • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 22:06

                    @netjock: Yeah I agree, people too focused on hourly rate which can be okay than the value, $300 or some extra cash, some exercise, a day away from the Xbox and maybe an appreciation on life. My sister works 4 days a week, 6 hour days but gets paid for 8, earns well above minimum wage and still complains.

        • Pacify on 12/09/2020 - 23:18
          +1

          None of them average $2-3k. Those 2-3k figure are the one single best week of their entire year.

          Its all bullshit.

          Yeah, the average picker will hit about minimum wage, working pretty hard. That's what an average competent backpacker will make. The ones that take basically no breaks, and keep moving and are motivated. The ones that aren't usually sit closer to $10 an hour.

          Now trust me, the effort required to make that $20 is not worth $20 in any other job. None. The only crop that doesn't fit that is Cherries, were you can actually make great money was acceptable requirments. But cherries is a very short season, and very, very, very fickle. You might travel 1000 km to go pick cherries, and then it rains. And rains. And rains. And then you are making $10 an hour desperately sorting the sad, fungus covered split cherries. And I've done that. More than once. Hell, I've spent all the money to catch the ferry to Tas, plus driving from NSW. For basically nothing.

          What other job compares to that?

          • leiiv on 13/09/2020 - 01:03

            @Pacify: I wonder where does the concept of grow local, work local, and sell local goes.

  • StickMan on 09/09/2020 - 12:39

    We are 6 months in on very cushy benefits package, if unemployed. If nothing will force a change, it's just too comfy to do anything else.

  • Fier2 on 09/09/2020 - 12:57
    +7

    The problem with fruit picking it s the fact that it is often far and when you take in account travel time and lunch. You will barely make any money out of it.

  • baldur on 09/09/2020 - 13:26
    +1

    lol.

  • Quantumcat on 09/09/2020 - 13:32
    +10

    Not to mention fruit picking is not a career. It is only available a few months a year. Then you have to move somewhere else because there's not going to be any other work in the small town the fruit picking is at. Moving is very expensive, you probably wouldn't even save enough while working to pay for the move. Then you have to find a rental and pay bond and rent upfront when you haven't even got a new job yet in the city. Fruit picking is not a job a normal person can take up - you really have to be a traveller, either roaming around the country in a caravan because that's the lifestyle you choose or be a foreign backpacker. Where you are happy to live somewhere for a month or two then pack up and live somewhere else for a month or two with no permanent home.

    • Pacify on 12/09/2020 - 23:21

      No one fruit picking stays in houses. At very best its a dingy caravan.

      But more often than not, its a tent.

  • Serpentis on 09/09/2020 - 13:34
    +32

    Souce: done fruit picking for a few summers.

    The average unemployed suburbanite in Melbourne or Sydney would probably LOSE money trying to uproot their life and run away doing the fruit picking circuit for a season. If you don't happen to live nearby you're losing a lot of money either from fuel/driving or from paying for local accommodation. If you have ANY responsibilities back home like pets, other work, rental contracts, then you're paying a lot to sort all that out to The reason backpackers/immigrants are able to do it is because they are are unattached, they don't have anything tying them down. I was a student living at home between semesters that lived nearby to orchards, it's a great option under those circumstances. But for the average person that's further along in life the disruptions to their life would would be more costly than what it earns. This isn't just a minimum wage job you can pop down the street to do, it's complicated.

    You can tell the people that have never done fruit picking or crunched the numbers. It's not a "people are lazy" problem, it's a logistical problem and you won't make any money unless you happen to be in the right circumstances. Farmers would need to treat this as a FIFO type arrangement and take care of the logistical side if they wanted to rope in unemployed city dwellers, simple as that.

    • peterpeterpumpkin on 09/09/2020 - 14:30
      +7

      I'm also an experienced fruit picker. I concur that the majority of people have no critical thinking ability. People are just plain stupid.

      And the farmers are lying (profanity) as well.

      • saltypete on 10/09/2020 - 08:08
        +1

        Thank you for that insight serpentis and Peterpeterpumkin. I have been unsure of how this plays out and your insights are quite helpful.

    • Pacify on 12/09/2020 - 23:24
      +3

      Unless you were like me - someone that came back from travelling and didn't really have a home, just living out a car - its just not viable. Asking someone to travel often 1000+ km for a couple months of work, then travel to where ever the next crop is. And then you can travel a 1k km and catch a ferry to tassie, and then it rains. And the cherries you went all that way to pick are basically ruined, and you end up making about $10 an hour.

      Its all pretty much nonsense.

    • twjr on 13/09/2020 - 19:42

      As an urbanite that has tried their hand at fruit picking once I can confirm it is a loss making exercise when you factor in all the added logistical costs. Needless to say I didn't bother persevering long enough to get skilled enough to make money. It was cheaper for me to sit on my lazy arse and earn nothing.

  • Krankite on 09/09/2020 - 13:34
    +1

    One of the problems with seasonal work vs job-seeker is that it when the work finishes you need to go through the job-seeker application again.

    My hand wavy solution is too allow job-seeker recipients to work (up to a certain income) while still receiving their payments but get taxed at the highest tax rate. Then when tax time comes the refund is reduced to cover the excess payments.

    • TheBird on 11/09/2020 - 01:51
      +1

      A system is already in place.

      Mathmatically it's almost like what you're suggesting, but it's a 40% / 60% reductions in payments depending on what you're earning, but it also has a threshold before it kicks in. For most, it ends up being much like the highest tax rate. Personally, I'd much prefer to see a gentler curve to give more encouragement to those on jobseeker to work.

  • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 14:10

    What I'm reading here is that the concept of living a 'traveller' lifestyle is foreign to a lot of Australians.

    How about this as an idea:
    Apparently there are a lot of students (Years 11, 12 and Uni) that are complaining of the impact of COVID on their studies this year. At the same time, they can't get out of Australia for their Euro adventure, or even to the Gold Coast for schoolies. They are almost all young and have little commitments in their lives.

    What if we 'cancel' this year of study, no exams, and get them all to take a gap period of 6 months, travelling around the country following the harvest season. They could travel in groups, experience real life, re-assess what is important to them.
    They get a guarantee to return to their studies at the end of the harvest season.
    A bit like conscription to the armed services, but safer.

    • ozhunter on 09/09/2020 - 14:14

      Replace students with bludgers 😂

    • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 16:57
      -2

      Students are in a hurry to graduate and join the legions of the unemployed. You got to run with the herd.

      • ThithLord on 10/09/2020 - 08:11
        +4

        Ah, yes, another Murdoch consumer. Good NetJock. Spread that hate.

        • netjock on 10/09/2020 - 13:19
          +3

          Spread that hate.

          What hate. It is true that we're in such a hurry to get as many students into universities that most graduates make less than people who work in construction / trades.

          If you are finishing high school and you could do a 3 year apprenticeship and be an electrician or plumber and make $100k a year vs having a $30k HECS-HELP (or whatever they want to call it now, maybe UniKeeper) and end up making $65k - $85k for decade.

          Most electricians and plumbers start early and can finish early, go home and scrub up and you won't notice in a nice shirt and blazer on a night out.

          There is hate. Just people hate having money in their pockets, much rather have it in someone else's. (That is obviously sarcasm).

          • ThithLord on 10/09/2020 - 13:46

            @netjock:

            Students are in a hurry to graduate and join the legions of the unemployed.

            When you said this, it seemed like you meant immediately joining JobSeeker. So I thought you were spreading hate/wrong information.

    • Antikythera on 11/09/2020 - 12:53

      who would teach them next year?

      remember all the year 12 teachers will be teaching this years year 11s.

      • GG57 on 11/09/2020 - 14:04

        I think there would be percentage that would not return to (tertiary) study, as this break would give them an alternate view on what is important in their life.
        My understanding is that Years 11 and 12 are not mandatory?

        For those that return to studies, it seems that the number of international students may reduce, so there could be capacity.
        Coupled with that there are plenty of teachers, lecturers, etc., being laid off by unis and schools; they could all come back.

    • Pacify on 12/09/2020 - 23:26
      +1

      Hahahaha.

      Oh lord. I can't imagine a group of 17 and 18 year olds going out picking fruit.

      Like, are you advocating for forced slavery? 99% of 17-18 year olds don't have what it takes to make minimum wage in fruit picking. Its not about being lazy, its just modern lifestyles.

      Fruit picking isn't a joke. It requires a lot of effort, constantly, unending effort. You can't stop. You can't take breaks. Expecting a 17 year old to go out in the heat and the sun for under minimum wage is a joke.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join