Reply With QuoteRick (26-04-24)
Originally Posted by bazzy
You have got to be shitting me???
You asked Wotnot for a link to his figures (from an Official Government source), I provided you with one and then you give me this crap?
Unf#@kingbelievable.
Cheers
Ted (Al)
Rick (26-04-24)
no, for where it was on a government site you provided it i then read the document you provided. the document that shows that young people can be paid less for no other reason other than their age. I then conceded that the way it is written regarding training is designed to encompass on job training situations such as apprenticeships, I then raise concern that there is pay discrimination owing to nothing more than their age. I then mention that in cases like this people under that age have to pay more for things like insurance but don't receive any concessions on things like electricity water or public transport.
i agree it is "Unf#@kingbelievable." that someone can be paid a percentage less than what the government has determined to be the minimum sustainable wage based on nothing more than how many candles are on the cake. In know i'm going to be calling my local member about that in the morning that's for sure. and to think this has nothing to do with their output as employees. so that means if you have a person age 18 in a box factory who can output lets say 30 boxes an hour and you have a 70 year old next to him with arthritis can only output 20 the 18 year old should still get paid $7.43 less than the 70 year old?
that is really concerning to me. a minimum should be a Minimum. the only exception to that should be training, in that training is the compensation for the remainder of the wage. aka $15.87 for the pay and $7.43 covers the training element.
now don't give me the business cant afford it rubbish, if the business can't afford the employees then there is something wrong with their business model, it means that it isn't sustainable. to use that as justification to pay someone under the minimum based on age is what i call parasitic capitalism, that means their business model relies on the exploitation of staff by means of underpaying them in order to keep the business afloat, this extends beyond just paying people less than the award this also encompass eroding staffs wages by paying them for 8 hours and expecting them to work 10 or 12 for no extra benefit.
so i'm not sure why my concern has you in such disbelief.
Aww gee, thanks Al for digging the link... I had imagined though, given it's always been this way in my lifetime, that everyone was aware that 'minimum wage' was always defined by how old your were...aye, indeed we used to look forward to the fact of becoming older, because your wage would go up a bit week after your birthday...yes?...yes??...it's how I recall it =)
...all I can think of, wrt the original vid material, is they're spinning the bottle to discover who's to blame, for the lack of 16 to 20 year olds in the workforce, which back when I was that old, was fairly commonplace...ie; get your 'junior certificate', leave school and join the workforce. That was until they introduced the HECS scheme, to make it possible for 16 to 20 year olds to be able to afford higher/further education, instead of just getting your 'junior certificate', leave school and join the workforce...."making Australia smarter"...or whatever. What's next... a bunch of govt. teevee ads imploring parents to teach their children not to aspire for Uni, and join the workforce instead?... good luck with that =)
....two steps back...this is all social engineering at work...they proffer so called news articles onto as many media types as they can, hoping that someone will do this.... ie; post a link to the vid and discuss it on another website....this way, they gain more hits than might otherwise be the case, and when the spiderbots crawl the web, they'll tally references found on other websites, to quantify the worth of their existence to the advertising world, and justify their share price on the stock market... ppl often get roped in by 'sensationalist' {ahem} 'reporting' like this, and become unintentional pawns in furthering the number count such 'media news' attracts.. .
Jma (25-04-24)
Time was when we had technical high schools that prepared kids for a trade, Those who wanted a degree had to attend a "conventional" high school and achieve decent marks to get into the university and degree course of their choice. It was also reasonable to expect to be "posted" to a rural or remote location for a period of time to help ameliorate the costs of training. The trouble rural and remote areas have attracting, and retaining, qualified people, is an example of the failures of the current system. I can see both sides of the "discussion". Time was when there was NO wage fixing. Wages, and prices, reflected that. If we raise the minimum wage, then, resultantly, costs will rise thus beginning a cycle of wage rise/cost rise.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
Al provided the link ~ you calculate the table based on the current adult minimum wage.
So what?...legally speaking you can have sex before you're old enough to hold a driver's license ...vocationally speaking you get tax breaks if you're married as opposed to being single. You get more breaks & payments if you have kids. You start on minimum wage for your age, and as you grown older, each year your minimum wage increases...until you hit the big 21 and you get adult wages....that's the way it is....
Anyhow...to correct myself above, it now seems that 'junior wage earners' are classified as those working aged 15 to 21....
I think you're confusing 'legal age' with 'working age' ...these are different things ; legal age plays no part in this.
...??...wtf?... that statement has nothing to do with the topic in discussion...
Rick (26-04-24)
The problem we have is our society at this point is not geared towards that format of education. and the problem has been that every government not particularly one side vs the other has ignored the situation going back the last 25 years and implemented bad policy after bad policy to patch a system that is fundamentally broken at its core. the issue came to head when the Australian dollar got far to high around 2016, that eroded the manufacturing sector to the point that the major vehicle manufacturers even stopped manufacturing in Australia.
the only solution to issues like housing is to increase the supply, the only way to increase supply is to increase investment and the only way to increase investment is to ensure there is stability in the market. unfortunately the massive rate hikes over the last year has created instability in the housing market resulting stifled investment in construction causing construction businesses to fall over. this in turn coupled together with unsustainable high immigration when our infrastructure and housing simply cant handle it creates the scenario where someone can ask $400 per week for a studio apartment.
The issues with cost of electricity came as a direct result of privatizing the electrical grid coupled together with 0 investment in the polls and wires infrastructure over the last couple of decades since. these issues are long standing issues that cause the cost for living to be as high as it is. all these problems have been boiling away untouched for over a decade and we are getting to the point where these problems are coming to head. the problem is the ones that are having to foot the bill so to say meaning the ones that it is effecting the most are people between 20 - 30 year old the elderly who are expected to live on the pension.
I simply cant see any short term way to change this. if you remove the minimum wage limit, all you will get is a whole lot of bad players dropping the wage they pay resulting in people not being able to afford a roof over their head. to dismantle and rebuild this mess is going to take time and a lot of careful planning and in the interim measures need to be put in place to make sure people are not being left behind as a result.
The point i was making was where the point has been made that "the younger generation are lazy" being gen Z the point i am making there is that the bulk of that generation at the age of working is above the age of 20, meaning minimum wages of $23.3/h apply.
and i get what your saying how it is. my question is why. what justification is there to pay someone who is under 21 years of age less when their basic living expenses are the same as the rest of us. how is that fair?
Last edited by bazzy; 25-04-24 at 11:37 PM.
this article is a good example.
and this isn't a sensationalized puff piece i have seen the video from the guy who posted the exchange before. and it was an aussie business who did it.
additionally i have had a company manipulate me when in was in my mid 20s and had me working from 8am to 11pm daily because they didn't want to hire an extra hand and they wrote in my contract that i had to work "until the work they provided was done" things came to head when I had to go to the DR while i was on my holidays and I received a toxic text message (at this point i had already found a new job at a major tech company and was going to hand my resignation in and give my notice when i returned from leave) he saw my reaction to the text message and asked what that was about and when i said he asked "do you mind if i have a look at that" i handed him the phone, then he started typing on his computer and asked "how much notice do you give?" and I told him. he printed a doctors certificate and said, go hand in your resignation and give this to HR this is for stress leave, returning to an environment like that will be detrimental to your health and I cant sanction it. I have also once gone against my personal rule that is never work for a small family run business and took a job at a local company. the first red flag was when negotiation was underway upon pay i said "the lowest i could accept was 50k + super that was as low as i was willing to compromise as they where close to where i lived. they they said good welcome aboard. the paperwork that i then had to sign they then set it to minimum wage hugely below the agreed upon amount and because i had a job offer i had suspended my job search. I really had no option but to accept that. what was worse was when i was being shown through the place i was told by the owner of the business that "we provide you with sandwiches for lunch so you can eat at the desk because we discourage people to take lunch breaks here as it impacts on productivity.
I will NEVER work for a small family run business again. i would rather be unemployed because my experiences have been negative.
...lol.... now you're looking for credibility by citing mainstream news media, highlighting a tiktok thread, with total ignorance to the facts....
Edit: did a tiny bit more research.... turns out;
In every state and territory in Australia, it is a federal offence under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)
to intercept or record any conversation conducted over a telecommunication system, regardless of whether the parties to the conversation
consent.
So even when the boss tells you it's ok to share information, at some legal level it may not be.
Also, a lot depends on their terms of employment, which may include;
electronic communications and social media aren’t private
the business can delete data and information employees have put into its systems at any time
what is and isn’t acceptable use for email, social media and internet at work
not to disclose personal information about customers or colleagues (including images of them) through social media, email or other mediums
the business monitors compliance with its privacy, social media and acceptable usage policies, and the possible consequences of breaching these policies
what information is recorded and kept by the business (such as content and patterns of employees’ emails and browsing activities, or location information) and who can access these records
what, if any, areas are under surveillance (including CCTV and drones) and who has access to the information (State and Territory laws may limit when surveillance can be conducted in the workplace and elsewhere.
Last edited by wotnot; 26-04-24 at 03:40 PM.
No... I didnt actually. I knew of this video long before this post as I saw it on the guys youtube channel before it ever become a tiktok meme but it so happened to pop up in my news.com feed hence why i posted it.
so sounds like the boss is guilty of that crime too.
read the ####ing article next time it was the boss that submitted it not the employee.
and no im not "looking for credibility" wotnot, i dont actually need to. next time actually come back with an argument rather than a personal attack on me.
to cancel planned and paid for overseas travel without discussion wouldn't be considered reasonable.
Im also interested in your screenshot.
was the move to not include where the fair works site goes on to clarify this exact situation strategic on your part?
it actually says the below
"
Cancelling annual leave
Employers or employees may want to cancel approved annual leave in some situations.
For example, an employer may want to cancel an employee’s leave because the business is busier than usual and they need more staff working.
An employer or an employee can only cancel approved annual leave if the cancellation isn’t unreasonable.
Awards, enterprise agreements, employment contracts and workplace policies may have extra rules about cancelling approved annual leave. Make sure you check what applies to you.
Employers cancelling annual leave
Before cancelling an employee’s leave, employers should consider:
whether any costs have been incurred by the employee (for example, if the employee has paid a deposit for activities during their leave)
how much notice of the cancellation is given.
Employees cancelling annual leave
If an employee asks to cancel their approved annual leave, an employer shouldn’t unreasonably refuse the request.
"
also the two examples where this type of bullshit behavior happened in my working career that i gave you i absolutly know all the facts in those cases how is it that you completely glossed over them and attempted to justify it?
Last edited by bazzy; 26-04-24 at 06:00 PM.
Bazzy,
You are not off the mark with your OP but went off the rails with Rick.
As always there are two sides to the story, well there may be more. I will use bullet points.
1 - Of course we boomers had it much easier to own and rent in our days, one decent wage would usually suffice but now everything has changed.
2 - Now my (well actually my son's) experience with the younger generation.
He is in year twelve. Way more than half have abandoned his school after year finishing year 10.
I heard horror stories about the way many kids were impeding lessons in the classroom and the teachers seemed helpless.
He now has classes with only 4-5 students instead of 30, these are those that actually want to lean something.
So that is our future, 1 in 6 might be achievers.
However 2 in 6 it seems may have left school to become apprentices, so that leaves 3 in 6 the type Rick could have been talking about.
Lets just say I am so glad I do not have to work with these people.
3 - I am also glad I am not a young person who has to survive today's realestate madness driven by speculators thanks to government tax breaks for speculators.
I say one solution and only one solution again and again, remove negative gearing(NG) from old buildings and introduce negative gearing for ALL new housing projects INCLUDING owner occupied.
Yes build your own home and work taxfree!
Wouldn't cost our Gov more than when they were feeding the speccies.
As a flow on effect all our problems would resolve.
NZ Labor actually did remove NG and housing started to get more affordable until their Liberals reversed that decision and housing is of course rising again, making the speculators rich and happy.
Instead many of our younger generation are forced to do two jobs to get by if they don't want to boomerang back to their parents.
Of course that are the 3 in 6 I was talking about about.
4 - Now back to manufacturing in Australia.
We have a huge problem as you point out.
We are too expensive to be competitive but you are wrong about our exchange rate.
In part this has to do with high wages(compared with most of the rest of the world) but also high overhead costs and payroll taxes, contributions insurances and all the reels of RED TAPE that exists in Australia.
Of course the wages need to be high to manage with the high cost of living mainly because of the over-speculated housing prices. Again stop supporting this hideous speculation with old buildings,
thus increasing value that doesn't exist and only beautifying our GDP.
Without the soaring realestate 'value' we would be deep in recession.
Lower the housing cost/rent and wages can be lower thus manufacturing becomes more feasible.
Instead the companies are trying keep wages low to survive anyhow, dubious as it seems, which you (and I) find of course unfair.
Unfortunately, unlike in the USA, we don't have the Hispanics flowing in, who work the really shitty jobs for a few bucks and keep the economy rolling.
...and nobody does much about the overhead costs, if anything it is mostly talk but little do from our politicians.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
All reasonable points. But I'm beginning to think that instead of hispanics we have people from the subcontinent doing those tasks. Now, maybe it's Canberra, but these jobs are almost all filled by people that come from that area....
I personally don't care, but what I would have called introductory jobs for the young just aren't there anymore. Those jobs that convince a kid that earning and having money beats the alternative.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
In fairness at least some of those jobs have been automated. and that's going to be unavoidable as automation improves.
I mean for some there is still a way to go
(not sure why they stood there letting it screw up that badly)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks