Minimum Wage vs. Sydney Cost of Living

[Value Collector]

Wages are definitely borked in Australia. Checkout chicks are on $21/hour. Same job in America pays $7.50. Just did my taxes and made 74K managing a bottleshop. Graduate accountant probably starts on what 45K? Around the same as the checkout chick.

If the Aussie dollar keeps falling we may end up about the same as the usa

 

[Trembling Hand]

Wages are definitely borked in Australia. Checkout chicks are on $21/hour. Same job in America pays $7.50. Just did my taxes and made 74K managing a bottleshop. Graduate accountant probably starts on what 45K? Around the same as the checkout chick.

Have a look at this chart today from Bloomy,



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-minimum-wage-only-enough-for-a-bowl-of-ramen

 

[qldfrog]

scary!!!

 

[luutzu]

Wages are definitely borked in Australia. Checkout chicks are on $21/hour. Same job in America pays $7.50. Just did my taxes and made 74K managing a bottleshop. Graduate accountant probably starts on what 45K? Around the same as the checkout chick.

Have you check how much you'd make in the US?


My brother in law's ex work for Woolworths. It's shift work and they move you around anytime... when you first started you get a couple hours here and there to equivalent of part-time... then move to full time equivalent after a couple years and have more stable days but still shifitng a couple days a week.

They have to buy their own uniform... I didnt ask about super or leave but yea. Not as great as it works out to be.

Don't think we ought to race to the bottom, it's not good for people in general and not good for consumer demand and economic growth either.

 

[Bill M]

They have to buy their own uniform... I didnt ask about super or leave but yea. Not as great as it works out to be.

Don't think we ought to race to the bottom, it's not good for people in general and not good for consumer demand and economic growth either.

Yep that's about right. Most people don't even know that Coles staff have to pay for their own uniform.

Super is the minimum by law that they have to pay, nothing more.

Lets hold up our standing in the world, keep our standard of living up, the last thing I would want for our country is the backward step towards a system like the USA.

 

[Vixs]

Uniform would be subsidised surely? Still likely to be cheaper than equivalent non branded clothes.it is also tax deductible and laundry costs you can claim in part for uniforms. Surprising but not that big a deal.

The reality is if staff cost less then managers may not send them home asap and we may get more reliable hours for them.

Job security, the casualisation of the workforce and underemployment are massive factors that need to be addressed if we want to maintain our standard of living. A modest salary is better than a generous casual rate but no hours.

 

[So_Cynical]

The reality is if staff cost less then managers may not send them home asap and we may get more reliable hours for them.

Really? - so if staff cost less then coles and woolies wouldn't need self service checkouts? banks would stop moving call centers off shore and employ locals, all these businesses would stop making billion dollar profits and employ locals.?

Horse ****!

 

[sydboy007]

The reality is if staff cost less then managers may not send them home asap and we may get more reliable hours for them.

I still remember the story of American Airlines back in the late 80s where they estimate that cutting just 1 olive from each first class salad would save them roughly $40K a year. The former Northwest Airlines saved $500,000 per year by cutting its limes into 16 pieces instead of 10, and found that the cleaning crews could save 10 minutes per flight by not having to clean ashtrays onboard the aircraft.

So no, I don't think lower minimum pay will do much to stop staff being sent home quick smart. The bottom line is the bottom line.

 

[Value Collector]

So no, I don't think lower minimum pay will do much to stop staff being sent home quick smart. The bottom line is the bottom line.

At the last Woolworths investor day, the topic of the number of staff hours invested in each store came up regularly, and was being weighed against the customer satisfaction levels, I think there is a balance between costs and levels of service that is needed, stores with not enough staff hours invested started to under perform, so there is a balance, if staff were cheaper, they would invest more hours to lift customer satisfaction, when staff is expensive trade offs need to be made, that wouldn't be made if the staff were cheaper.

 

[Vixs]

Really? - so if staff cost less then coles and woolies wouldn't need self service checkouts? banks would stop moving call centers off shore and employ locals, all these businesses would stop making billion dollar profits and employ locals.?

Horse ****!

The problem with self service checkouts is that they get the job done just fine. There is often no need for a human being to be involved in that transaction and that's unfortunate if your only skill is bagging items. I'd rather people have work but we can't dodge the fact that technology is disrupting many industries, and my own is no exception.

What you're talking about is structural change to job roles. The outsourcing of a whole team or the redundancy of a whole role are different to having employees that want to work full time for you but can only get 14 hours a week, maybe pick up another shift or two if someone is on holidays. One leads to job loss, the other leads to underutilisation that is perhaps even more damaging because those workers are vulnerable as they are rarely in a position of financial strength, and there is always the carrot on a stick permanency just around the corner..maybe. At least when your whole job is gone you know in no uncertain terms that you ned to reskill and move on.

A salary of 1200 net a fortnight would be more conducive to an individuals financial wellbeing and sucess than 900 one week and 300 or even 500 the next. For many people to have the confidence to borrow, spend, live and save they need to have stability of income. We're talking about not much more than the poverty line in income, but financial decisions can be made with some certainty of future cash flows.

Job security and utilisation of the underemployed are important to our future success, but i fear we are headed the wrong way.

 

[sptrawler]

The problem with self service checkouts is that they get the job done just fine. There is often no need for a human being to be involved in that transaction and that's unfortunate if your only skill is bagging items. I'd rather people have work but we can't dodge the fact that technology is disrupting many industries, and my own is no exception.

What you're talking about is structural change to job roles. The outsourcing of a whole team or the redundancy of a whole role are different to having employees that want to work full time for you but can only get 14 hours a week, maybe pick up another shift or two if someone is on holidays. One leads to job loss, the other leads to underutilisation that is perhaps even more damaging because those workers are vulnerable as they are rarely in a position of financial strength, and there is always the carrot on a stick permanency just around the corner..maybe. At least when your whole job is gone you know in no uncertain terms that you ned to reskill and move on.

A salary of 1200 net a fortnight would be more conducive to an individuals financial wellbeing and sucess than 900 one week and 300 or even 500 the next. For many people to have the confidence to borrow, spend, live and save they need to have stability of income. We're talking about not much more than the poverty line in income, but financial decisions can be made with some certainty of future cash flows.

Job security and utilisation of the underemployed are important to our future success, but i fear we are headed the wrong way.

Welcome to globalisation, why should someone in China packing shelves get any different salary, to someone in Italy, Spain, Greece, U.K, USA or Australia? Other than the exchange rate.

If they are getting less money, in buying power, isn't it exploitation?

Aren't we embarrassed by wage inequality, or is that just confined to our own society?

 

[luutzu]

At the last Woolworths investor day, the topic of the number of staff hours invested in each store came up regularly, and was being weighed against the customer satisfaction levels, I think there is a balance between costs and levels of service that is needed, stores with not enough staff hours invested started to under perform, so there is a balance, if staff were cheaper, they would invest more hours to lift customer satisfaction, when staff is expensive trade offs need to be made, that wouldn't be made if the staff were cheaper.

Maybe it's not the staff and their wages that's the problem. I heard WOW's head office is a marvel to look at.

Maybe WOW and WES will go the way of WalMart and start handing out food stamps to its underpaid employees. Maybe start a new income stream by charging them for help to fill in under-employment forms.

Fair enough businesses want to make more profit, is not a charitable or job assistant enterprise... but when your profits mean pushing your employees towards the poverty line, you're either in the wrong business or not thinking hard enough.