As with many things that one generally approves of, there’s a tendency to expend less energy writing on them than one does about those things which get one obstreperated, which is why LP has not yet posted on either of the two following pieces of legislation initiated by the Gillard government:
150,000 low paid community sector workers are set to win pay rises of at least $7,000 each after the Gillard Government announced it would back the increases at Fair Work Australia.
And in Parliament tonight, the Senate’s passed Labor’s plain cigarette packaging legislation with amendments to the start date. [Source: Lateline transcript:]
The amended Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 will have to be approved again by the House of Representatives before becoming law.
Because the low paid community sector workers are predominantly women, and Labor has had the temerity to note that carer’s work classed as “women’s work” continues to be undervalued by society at large, the first bill is being described by some as all about “fighting sexism” or “a feminist cause” instead of being about justice for low paid workers in the non-commercial arena (‘if there are enough workers willing to do the job at the current rates of pay, then where’s the problem?’ runs that argument).
The plain packaging bill is, of course, being demonised all over the shop by a different soundbite-sized attack from Big Tobacco every day. What are the most entertaining ones you’ve heard so far?
The news about community sector workers’ wages is good news, but there’s still a way to go. The Federal Government will make a joint submission with the Australian Services Union to Fair Work Australia, supporting the rates of pay the union has been seeking in its Equal Remuneration case for these workers. The $2 billion commitment is based on these wages rates (the Qld rates, won by the ASU in the QIRC in 2009).
But the final decision belongs to the full bench of Fair Work Australia, and the union’s claim is being opposed by employer associations, some employers and a couple of recently elected Liberal Governments.
In Fair Work Australia’s decision in the case in May, it found there was undervaluation due to gender, however the full bench rejected the Qld rates, which is why there are still to be submissions on the extent of gender undervaluation. So the Federal Government’s support doesn’t mean community workers have it in the bag just yet.
The fact is there aren’t enough workers willing to do the job at the current rates of pay, which is why lots of employers in the sector are supportive of the push (though, since they’re Government funded, their support is qualified by the need for increased funding). Health and community services is one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the country. Equitable wages for these workers is certainly about gender and justice, but it’s also about the sustainability of a crucial sector and our social safety net.
Thanks for posting, tigtog.
* sorry, being opposed by *some* employer associations. There is at least one in support.
For all the criticism dished out to Gillard and her government (much well deserved), she is starting to accumulate a solid body of achievement. If she can bed down health reform, the NBN and gambling reform in this term, she will have a pretty good story to tell about “what I did when I was Prime Minister”, regardless of the outcome of the next election. And of course the more she actually achieves things, the greater her chances of re-election.
Will plain packaging really reduce consumption? Or is the reason the tobacco industry dislikes it because it will undermine their brands? I predict cheaper cigarettes from new brands and increased consumption!
I predict cheaper cigarettes from new brands and increased consumption!
If so, it’s a problem easily solved by increasing the excise duty.
Presumably there is nothing stopping them paying their workers above award wages now is there? I guess having the award wages rise gives them a good excuse to raise prices where they can too (assuming they actually charge for their services since some are run by charities).
Long ago, when I was still a smoker, and otherwise foolish, I objected to paying three dollars for a pack of cigarettes, to be mocked by the counter clerk, who said: ‘you’d pay five’. He was right, although it wasn’t until the price had actually reached that point that I did. And I’d have bought them in whatever packaging them came in, too. Plain packaging and scarey pictures and high prices won’t stop everyone, maybe not even very many. But each one who quits is one fewer, and that can’t be a bad thing. RJ Reynolds et al. will still be able to put their branding on billboards and race cars, so I’m not going to cry if they can’t have distinguishing marks on the smokes themselves.
Presumably there is nothing stopping them paying their workers above award wages now is there?
Not true. The agencies who deliver these community services get funded by state governments, mostly, who expect them to hire the people to deliver the services and to get the services delivered, usually without charge.
Would be nice if Queensland Community Service workers were receiving the pay rise they won in 2009. It hasn’t happened yet. http://www.asu.asn.au/media/sacs/20110928_equalpay.html
GregA – I think that plain packaging isn’t about discouraging current smokers, its about not attracting new ones. I definitely thinks this legislation is a good thing, but suspect that just regularly (every year) increasing the exercise would both give notice to smokers that they’ll need to cut back as well as be very effective and help the ALP balance the budget
More of the same ALP behaviour of feather-bedding union mates with tax-payers’ money. The usual we-give-you-tax-money, you-give-us-donations back-scratching the country has come to expect from the left long before Centenary House.
I can’t see plain packaging laws making any difference. The companies aren’t allowed to advertise or have their products on display anyway. You have to be determined to smoke if you’re going to these days. If the law won’t make a difference, why bother with it?
Personally I think the war on tobacco has been won, and increasingly relevant bodies are looking around nervously for contrived crusades to justify the existence of their empires.
Presumably there is nothing stopping them paying their workers above award wages now is there?
Will is stop addicted smokers? No.
Will it stop non-smokers from taking up smoking? Yes (though not all). These people are the primary targets of tobacco company marketing; they need to keep refreshing their customer base, because their products keep killing their existing customers. This is why the tobacco companies are so scared of this legislation.
I can’t see plain packaging laws making any difference.
Then why are the tobacco companies so worried about them?
Plain packaging may well work, particularly to stop new smokers taking it up. It’s very unlikely to result in “new brands” appearing though. How would they establish their brand in the minds of smokers with no avenue for promotion?
If I were an existing tobacco company I’d be sanguine. The barrier to entry for new competitors is now insurmountable.
Understandably they want to protect trademarks from competitors. I don’t believe the law will change the number of cigarettes sold one bit. I’m not convinced the law won’t result in more counterfeit products either.
It’s very unlikely to result in “new brands” appearing though
It’s not impossible that the supermarkets will introduce cheap house brand cigarettes, just as they have with many grocery items. It would be a big PR risk for them though, and a policy problem easily fixed by putting up the excise.
There’s no need to protect trademarks from competitors as no trademarks are going to be allowed. By definition, anything with a trademark would be counterfeit.
“feather-bedding”
hahahhahahahhahah, groan.
You haven’t ever worked in the community sector or know anyone who does, do you Craig Mc? I mean, they’re all fat cat layabouts and society doesn’t need ‘em, isn’t that right?
Everyone, if you want to be depressed, check these columns and comments (via Grogs tweets):
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/of-australias-lowest-paid-workers-including-120000-women-are-set-for-a-pay-rise/comments-e6freuy9-1226191139695
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/julia-gillard-pledges-2-billion-to-cover-pay-rises-for-150000-lowest-paid/comments-e6frf7jo-1226191175182
I don’t believe the law will change the number of cigarettes sold one bit .
Time will tell.
I’m not convinced the law won’t result in more counterfeit products either.
Another tobacco company talking point. It’s hard to see the logic with this one. What’s counterfeit? Fake tobacco?
“I don’t believe the law will change the number of cigarettes sold one bit.”
vs
“Will it stop non-smokers from taking up smoking? Yes (though not all).”
We will soon enough have clear empirical data one way or another. You two should consider a small wager…
By competitor, I meant infringers in general. Yes, in this case they have to protect their trademarks from the government. As I understand it, trademark holders are almost obliged to reflexively challenge any incursion on their rights.
It will be interesting to see which way courts lands on this. It might not even be Australian courts deciding the issue.
Black market tobacco. Stuff without excise paid on it.
Craig Mc @ 22 – if it becomes a problem there is no reason they couldn’t introduce anti-counterfeit methods (eg holograms etc which aren’t brand specific). That way the barrier to entry for illegal tobacco is not significantly lower than what it is now.
“Black market tobacco. Stuff without excise paid on it.”
With the closure of the previously heavily subsidised tobacco growing industry in NE Victoria, this has become far more difficult.
But it’s not much of a policing problem, it’s pretty easy to get on top of.
Time will also tell on the black market tobacco.
The community sector pay rise signals a clear strategy: (a) dare the Liberals to oppose it (b) differentiate from the Greens, whose strong suit is not identification with low paid workers.
weird, a totally innocuous comment (no links, no obvious trigger words) stuck in moderation.
I remain unconvinced that packaging has any impact on the purchase decision for cigarrettes. Price, taste and nicotine content are the key drivers. However, I commend the ALP on taking on this fight as it continues on the path to the day tobacco products will be banned. That won’t happen until smoking rates for adults fall below 10% of the population and the electoral backlash is minimised – it an issue that could be supported by all parties.
As for the proposed pay rises for the Community Sector – I foresee that the unintended consequences of this policy path are going to be very ugly for the ALP as the ones who will be most impacted will be those that rely on the Community Sector workers. Based on the ALP’s litany of policy failures (both proposed and implimented), I hold little hope of this being anything but an unmitigated disaster for the sector.
“Black market tobacco. Stuff without excise paid on it.”
I find the tobacco company claims about the size of this market to be absolutely ridiculous. I smokes for years and I’ve known some very dodgy characters in my time as well as people who actually lived in tobacco growing areas and yet the amount of black market tobacco I’ve been offered over the years is sweet FA (and most of that was stolen not cheap illegally imported).
As it happens, it’s not illegal to grow it, just to sell it. I’m surprised more die-hard smokers don’t grow their own.
Anyway, I don’t want to overstate the case. I’m just not convinced it won’t be a bigger problem as a result of the new legislation.
I agree that there are diminishing returns from further restrictions on packaging of tobacco products.
But so what? This legislation costs very little to administer. Thus good health outcomes are achieved at low cost.
A win for decency over callous liars.
unintended consequences … be most impacted will be those that rely on the Community Sector workers
Presumably on the grounds that if it costs more to employ community sector workers then fewer of them will be employed because their employers won’t be able to afford to employ them – right, Raze?.
Except that the pay rise is to be funded by Australian Government, not the employers.
Try complaining as a taxpayer. At least that will be logically consistent.
Not quite. I think employers have to cough up too.
Craig @ 31 – the numbers I heard on the news was the Federal government would be picking up about 40% of the increased cost where the fund directly. The state government would have to pick up quite a bit too. The rest would have to be privately raised by charities/non profits, or worst case by reducing services.
The alternative of course is that we continue to pay these people absolutely nothing, they remain demoralised and get clear signals about what society values, services continue to decline anyway, because everybody realises that we just don’t care any more..
Occam is right. There is a way to solve this. Drop down the pay to $10. A day. Problem solved! After all if community secotr workers actually ‘care’ about their clients they’ll just suck it up yes?
Seriously though these workers have had to deal with lower pay for far too long because
-it’s mainly females who do the work
-the workforce aren’t in a position to strike without hurting their clients (catch 22, if they strike and put their personal care ahead of their clients they shouldn’t really be working in that sector)
-the economic gains from these workers are long term and hard to measure.
Of course we’ll have some keyboard warriors come in here and say it’s not real work like mining etc.
The truth is that is is hard work, it involves personal risk and doing unpleasant things and dealing with unpleasant situations where if you screw up people can end up harmed or dead.
wilful @ 18.
not in the mood to be depressed, but i can imagine what some of those tele reader comments are about… dead set against any payrise ‘cos it’ll ruin everything, but with more expletives….
i reckon, just like half the whingers about the carbon price, many who WORK in the industry and stand to gain, will complain simply because their guide (the papers) tell them to.
so sad.
wilful @ 34 – a decline in services is something that will be noticed and should put pressure on the government (both state and federal) to further increase funding.
The Queensland government made a specific commitment to ensure services would not decline and that funds would be provided to compensate for pay increases awarded. I seem to remember that the Victorian government did, too, but Baillieu may have walked away from it.
Remember, also, that any pay increase would be phased in over *six years*.
Kim @ 38 – was that QLD government commitment include all services that the payrise covers or just ones the QLD government directly funds?
I agree that given the pay increase doesn’t even start to kick in for another 12 months and is phased in over 6 years means there isn’t going to be a huge shock to the system. So both governments and non profits will have time to adjust. With the government able to take up some of the slack if need be.
Chris, I think it was all services because the context was a similar case (which was successful) for equal pay under the Queensland Industrial Relations Act which varied the SACS award which applied to most social and community sector workers in Queensland, whether their employers were funded by the state government or not. Because the Fair Work Act took over most of the Queensland government’s industrial jurisdiction (with the exception of its own employees), I believe that the government committed to a similar pledge with regard to the results of the federal equal pay case.
But, yep, Chris, I think that’s right.
The fly in the ointment is the attitude of the Liberal governments. People who care about this issue should be lobbying Messrs O’Farrell, Baillieu and Barnett.
Hmm…. yes, to a point.
But for a legal aid lawyer? (Come on!)
(how many of the beneficiaries of this Soviet system of “all workers must be paid equal wages” actually “wipe arses” for a living?
This “Soviet system”! Sometimes I wish LP did have ‘laugh’ emoticons.
GILLARD IS A COMMUNIST!!!!
YOUR LYING COMMIE TAX-EATER!
Btw, the point is not that “everyone should be paid equal wages” (and the SACS awards in the community sector, like any other remuneration structure recognise qualifications and experience and skills), but that people should be paid equally for work of equal value.
Fine @43, googling that phrase gets me 17,000 hits.
I wonder about whether there’s sexism exposed in responses to different classes of workers taking industrial action for better pay and conditions – eg the Victorian government refraining from criticising the police union when it refuses to enforce traffic laws, while heavily criticising nurses for taking industrial action that does not actually compromise patient safety.
Sam said:
From a link in my Greens e-brief #245 …
Federal govt does right thing on equal pay, pressure now on NSW to step up
Craig, many of those employers are not-for-profits whose main source of income is the funding grants they receive from State and Federal governments, or who tender for government contracts to provide services.
In my state the responsible department ADHC, only delivers a small number of services directly, they have a few OTs, Speechies and other therapists whose services are massively oversubscribed, they provide Case Management and they run respite accomodation but most of the day to day front-line services are delivered by non-profits. We receive a disability support package from the Department which is auspiced by one non-profit while our direct services come from another. Ageing and disability services isn’t the only sector which employs people on the SACS award, but it must form a very large component.
One of the main arguments put by a union rep on the ABC this morning was that they need a payrise because they are under the average wage. That’s an interesting argument which should be replicated for a lot of the workforce. Of course, then we’ll have to start all over again because the average will have gone up.
SATP asked:
Doubtless they’ll be those on $35k rather than those with degrees who are closer to $45k …
Meee proposed:
That was a comment not a “main argument”. The point was that they were underpaid in general, largely because the sector was female dominated. Moreover, wages of $35-45k are not adequate to live on. This also harms the end users of community sector services and fuels high staff turnover. In short, it is inequitable both for workers and their intended beneficiaries.
On your second point …
Not if we reduce the wages of people above the average by the requisite amount, starting with the highest paid. In practice, I agree that’s impracticable and thus unlikely. I suspect though that community sector workers though are not only below AFTWE but the median full time wage (the wage at which exactly 50% of people working full time are employed) as well. That’s harder to justify.
oops: the wage at which 50% of people working full time get more or the same and 50% get less)
Oh dear, had to write something about a good thing our PM has done! Would have been better not to mention it at all then grudgingly and late IMHO.
the median full time wage (the wage at which exactly 50% of people working full time are employed)
Fran, the readers of this blog know what a median is. You must be confusing us with Catallaxy.
As an occasional smoker I’m ambivalent to the packaging issue. What I find somewhat inexplicable is disproportionate effort put into stopping people from drinking to the point where they become a danger to themselves or others. The material and emotional cost to the community must be huge. I’m a bit tired of hearing Mike Daube talking about smoking as though it poses an existential threat to the fabric of society whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.
Fran @ 52 “wages of $35-45k are not adequate to live on”. Tell me about it! Since we have people earning three times that complaining that the “great big tax” (that isn’t a tax) is going to destroy everything wonderful and beautiful about their chosen way of life we here see how much the community sector generally is simply taken for granted.
Paul @ 46, why doesn’t that surprise me?
Kim, the concept of ‘equal pay for work of equal value’ is just a little bit difficult for some people to understand.
LOL, I just read that one of the submissions opposing the wage case came from Heather Ridout as head of the AIG, even though they do not represent any employers that would be affected by the outcome! Sounds like they oppose equal pay for work of equal value on principle. I do sympathize, it would shake the foundations of capitalism if all of that underpaid and upaid caring work had to be accounted for.
Fran at 52, “wages of 35k-45k are not adequate to live on.” I think the reception staff at my university are paid 180k yen a month, which amounts to about 25k Aus$ a year. They seem to be managing somehow on this in Tokyo. I think the starting wage for a company employee in Tokyo is about the same.
Maybe there is something wrong with Australia if we have got to the point where it’s easier to live on a given wage in Tokyo than it is in Australia?
What I love about the plain packaging legislation is that the strikes at the heart of the post-modern corporate world. These days, apparently, everything – and everyone – is a “brand” (I’m sure we’re only a few years away from grandchildren referring to their nanna as a brand).
Taking away a brand almost creates an existential crisis among corporate types. Without a brand, this is just a product designed to create addiction (and then cancer).
Patrickb @ 55 – Well I’d support similar advertising laws for alcohol as there are for cigarettes. But one difference is that when people who drink too much adversely affect those around them they are often covered by other laws governing behavior.
However smokers (and I’m not trying to make this personal) adversely affect others with second hand smoke even at low levels of use. Thankfully, though very slowly, we are getting laws which make safe areas for non smokers, and children who often don’t get a say in the matter.
I understand the concept of work of equal value very well.
There isn’t much case for suggesting that any of those who got the pay rise are adding any economic value to anything. Hence the pay was unhappily low.
The case for raising their pay was nothing more than “someone else is being paid more than “A” is, therefore “A” should have a pay rise.
If the work had equal value, why was it not already being paid more?
Short answer: The work is not of equal value.
Here is Sally McManus, secretary of the ASU, explaining more clearly the point I was trying to make at 49. From a SACS News Bulletin in 2010:
That is bang on Su.
If one party hasn’t the power to bargain, then the process is pointless.
“If the work had equal value, why was it not already being paid more?
Short answer: The work is not of equal value.”
Equal value to what, Steve?
I love the logic you employ. Everything must always, already be allright, otherwise it would already be different than what it is.
Not quite what I meant Fine.
I intended that some work is not of equal economic value, or of equal demand, even though that work may require equal input, or equal skill.
No Steve, the point was that both employer and employee are dependent upon the government, the employer cannot offer higher wages independently, hence the necessity of the national wage case.
Steve’s right. The work is of far greater value than what those people were getting paid to do it.
su @ 67 – it is rather interesting that governments have to setup an independent body to make themselves fund non profit groups sufficiently so they can pay their employees adequately. Rather than just increasing funding in the first place!
Oops, “Equal Pay case” not National Wage etc.
sg @ 60: “Maybe there is something wrong with Australia if we have got to the point where it’s easier to live on a given wage in Tokyo than it is in Australia?”
Indeed. One of the reasons of course is that taxes in Japan are lower. And the main reason for Australia’s tax levels is that governments – the current Federal government is one of the worst examples but far from the only offender – go round pissing billions against the wall in this sort of manner, billions that can only be paid out of taxes. $2 billion is small change compared with the NBN, the Bob Brown support ensurement scheme, etc, but it doesn’t help.
Given our disputes over so many things sg, I’m delighted we agree on this one.
su @64 “the fact that our employers do not control the purse strings and are dependent on government funding.” Yes, there is really no such thing as an NGO these days; they have almost all become in effect GOs. There are a number of implications in this situation, going well beyond wage claims.
‘One of the reasons of course is that taxes in Japan are lower’
Oh really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Yes Chris, what I know of the history is skewed towards the disability side but I suspect the situation arose because of the progression from old style government run institutions to the policy of deinstitutionalisation which meant that care was supposed to occur in the community. In practice this meant that individuals and families were looking after people completely unaided until eventually it was realised that the government would have to fund that community care.
The result is a dog’s breakfast and a nightmare to navigate, but when you find a good key front-line worker, as we have, it makes all the difference, the value is incalculable. I don’t think people like Steve have the experience to know how crucial these services are but I’d invite him to use his imagination. The work is said to be invisible and that is partly because the people they work with are often invisible, shuttling between a very few safe supported environments and home. That is a reflection of the society we live in, it isn’t very welcoming for people who have a profound disability.
Wozza,
You forgot to mention the Howard govt blowing Billions on the JSF program on jets that couldn’t get off the ground. Govt’s of either persuaion are gulity of taking the piss out of taxpayers.
This “they are paid less because they are women” argument just gets my goat up. Workers are generally paid what they are worth not by their gender. The problem with Community Sector workers’ remuneration calculations is that it is extremely difficult to put a value on what they do and many have immeasurable outcomes. How do you value a social worker or, dare I say it, a Community Organiser (all bow down to his greatness).
I don’t think they shouldn’t be paid more. However there should be attempts to link remuneration to the value of the outcomes and the worth of the workers.
Everybody needs to recognise that if the cashflow to cover the new wages isn’t forthcoming then something has to be cut. It is all happy joy joy for the PM to parade around in triumph for the gals but if your are a Director on the Board of a not-for-profit organisation that is going to be dealing with this, then, if you want to have the Directors Liabiltiy Insurance covering your backside, you are going to be looking very carefully to protect the solvency of your organisation – if the cashflow isn’t there (because not all funding bodies can just borrow on the national credit card like the Federal ALP) then wages can’t be paid and services will need to be cut.
@75 – you have taken this off topic – but the JSF is flying, has been for years. If it was such a bad buy then why hasn’t the ALP Government scrapped our buy – thye’ve had four years to make the decision and haven’t – Oh! that’s why – because it is the right buy. It’s just a shame we can’t get our hand on the F-22 Raptor as well.
Well i say Yay to the wages joy and boo to the plain packaging.
OBR “This “they are paid less because they are women” argument just gets my goat up. Workers are generally paid what they are worth not by their gender.” (Not trying to pick on you old chap, just that you were the last poster i saw with that line).
The community sector doesn’t get paid less because they are women, they get paid less because they are doing women’s work. Work that was originally done in the Anglo-sphere by women for free. Science research used to be done by men for free, mostly as a hobby, they were rich men. Both of these past-times have become paid work at roughly the same rate. I’m fairly sure that the job that used to be a blokes hobby gets paid better.
You are right tho OBR, it is hard to put a value on the work. back when i was working in detoxs we had clients who would churn through 5 to 10 grands worth of gear a week On the 10 to one fencing equation, that is you get roughly 10% of the face value of any stolen goods, by keeping one of those clients in the detox for a week, we were saving the community of Victoria between a quarter and half a mil. our detox had eight beds, we were usually full and we had operating costs of about 10% of a prison on a per client basis. a pretty good return for the community i reckon. more research would need to be done to pin down the value tho.
This suggestion that Australia’s taxes are relatively high compared to the OECD is a complete myth, as absolutely anyone without ideological blinders would know.
I don’t think anyone apart from a signed up member of the Liberal party would attempt to claim that Howard/Costello were paragons of fiscal rectitude. Indeed, I recall that was a bit of a theme in the 2007 election.
The JSF isn’t a good example – defence spending is always a boondoggle, designed to benefit electorates a long long away, aided and abetted by a terminally incompetent defence procurement organisation, no matter what the hue of the government.
Better examples would be the middle class welfare that Howard embarked on, the structural changes to the tax system, the complete failure to reform apart from teh GST in 11 years.
I don’t see your point Adrian – your attachment shows that the average level of income tax in Japan is lower than Australia’s (and I think you will find that it is less regressive, so that at lower incomes the difference is even more pronounced), and that its GST-equivalent is half the level of Australia’s.
JdeM @ 75: which is why I noted that this government has been “far from the only offender”. The speed with which it has converted a healthy budget surplus to a deficit, which will clearly not come under control when it said it would, does however suggest pointing the finger at it with this qualification is not unreasonable.
Wozza,
Alright point taken but you’re forgetting the GFC but personally I consider budget surpluses immoral. You’re either not spending enough on the people or taking too much tax.
John Curtin would weep. Read his defence expenditure speech as Leader of the Oppositionin 1936.
su said:
My mum used to work in the disability area and one of the problems is that there is little scope for financially rewarding people who are very good at the hands-on work, but do not want to go into management.
I don’t know if its still the case, but it used to be that in some areas such as physiotherapy that you could work in the disability area and do pretty well if you work privately rather than in the public system. People who have the ability to pay are actually willing to pay quite a lot for good services, its just that many simply cannot afford to do so. I don’t know how it really works these days, but I wonder if a medicare-like payment system would help?
Why? Their employer could always give them more money.
It is not illegal to do so.
FDB 14,
There is a risk that the khaki coloured packs, while reducing smoking in the general populace, may promote a smoking increase within our armed forces where this colour is preferred. If this occurs then the government may well need to a little bit further and make the packs camouflage colours…to make them harder to find.
GregM – sorry, didn’t mean it was illegal, just the culture and management don’t see that as a good thing to do. It’s just assumed that if you want higher pay you move into management. Compare that to say IT where it’s not that uncommon for managers to be earning less than some of those they manage.
OBR: “The problem with Community Sector workers’ remuneration calculations is that it is extremely difficult to put a value on what they do and many have immeasurable outcomes….”.
Ahhh yes, just like the CEOs of major corporations.
Chris, my experience is much the same as you describe. When the boys were little I volunteered for the management committee at their Early Childhood Intervention programme, only the funding for the director’s wages took account of her stepped progression through the award, there were 5 other staff members beside and we had to do fundraising of $20, 0000 a year to pay for equipment and so on as the wages kept taking a larger and larger chunk out of the other funding packages, none of which took account of the increasing experience, and therefore cost, of the staff.
We were constantly scrounging for money, which was an added burden on the staff, many of whom were working up to double their paid hours. That is the other aspect of the gendered nature of the work; because the need is so great, staff work simply huge amounts of unpaid overtime and often end up doing work which is supposed to be the responsibility of other bodies. Knowing the dire consequences that will flow if they don’t meet a particular need, they continue to do the work whether they are paid for it or not.
There are some medicare rebates for therapies when people have complex care needs –you go to your GP and they set up a Health Care Plan.
Eric Skyes, great joke.
CEO’s input is easily measured in dollars. Simply eliminate the post altogether, then watch the share price & financial performance of the firm.
Community sector work, with little or no economic value, is much harder to put a dollar value on the remuneration. Remove community sector workers & the only immediate impact will be upon those they serve, with a bit of collateral ripple caused by those who cannot behave themselves once the community sector workers are gone.
Isn’t a good proportion of the sector we’re talking about run by charities (or “not-for-profits” as they are sometimes called)? who are notorious for poor working conditions, employing volunteers, and low wages. But shelving off care work to those kinds of organizations was part of the plan in the Howard years, I think, and state govts love it because they can force down wages.
Wozza, I think the difference in living costs is to do with infrastructure investment, myself. Japan has a huge debt and has no doubt pissed large amounts of that govt spending away on bailing out the corporate sector (remember they accrued a lot of debt in the 90s doing their version of TARP). But they also spent a lot of money on what right-wing “economists” like to call pork barrelling, boondoggles, bridges to nowhere, etc. As a result they now have an excellent transport infrastructure, cheap housing, and a very pro-business environment in their cities. Can you live in your own apartment in the centre of Melbourne for $800 a month? It’s pretty easy to do in Tokyo.
Also Japan has pretty low income inequality by world standards. I bet their care workers are paid closer to the median than Aussie care workers are.
And that, my dears, is why the types of people who gravitate towards socially useful work – teaching, disability, nursing, refuges – are always underpaid, especially where there’s a preponderance of women, who are raised to be more susceptible to guilt. It’s an area where “market forces” really do fail miserably.
Helen, I don’t know if, theoretically speaking, “leveraging guilt for maximum cost-cutting opportunities” is a failure of market forces. I think it might be a feature, not a bug.
@62
Indeed, as you say there are now many laws preventing smoking in areas where damage or injury to others from smoke may be an issue. However there are many other laws covering advertising and the display of cigarettes for sale that don’t apply to alcohol. IMHO alcohol advertising definitely encourages people to drink and drink a lot. I’d like to see the reaction of various sections of the community to a proposal to ban alcohol advertising.
Yes, you’re right, SG :-~
Patrickb – I’d like to see restrictions on alcohol advertising linked to sport, but I’m guessing you’d see an outcry similar to the one generated by the proposed pokies legislation.
Steve at the Pub: where do you think your misanthropic worldview – and those of fellow right-wingers – originated? Were you not hugged enough as a child? Or did you experience some awful childhood trauma like Ayn Rand and have a favourite A-Team truck given away by horribly altruistic parents?
In any event, it is possible to see the light. Just relax and stop worrying that some un-Australian minority group – in this case women – are getting something you’re not. Honestly, life’s too short mate.
Ginja, you can drop the “misanthropic” if you wish to engage with me.
(After that) explain why you say I am a “right winger”.
THEN you can explain the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion that I believe “women” are (a) un-Australian, and (b) getting something I am not.
Only then will we begin to explore why thinking ain’t your strong point.
“(After that) explain why you say I am a “right winger”.”
Now that’s funny.
SATP: It is easy to see what CEO’s are worth. Just think of all the companies whose share value jumped when the old CEO leaves.
Even easier to measure the value of mining truck drivers. Just look at what happens when they go on strike.
CEO’s and other important very well paid people don’t go on strike because they have a nasty suspicion that production will actually go up if they are not there
One step at a time. The way to start would be banning alcohol-branded paraphenalia in children’s sizes.
The number of kids I see wearing Carlton (not the AFL team) -branded baseball caps, singlets, shorts, bags and scarves — well it shocks and appals me, it does!
On the ABC 7:00 news bulletin last night, as they interviewed happy Gold-Coasters about the C’wealth Games win, they showed about a 6-second shot of a happy mother saying how happy she ways, and on her knee her boy, all of seven or eight years old, was wearing a Carlton Pure Blonde Naked baseball cap.
It’s frankly incredible that we go out of our way to stop tobacco companies advertising, when alcohol manufacturers can put their brand on 100 different varieties of free shit that becomes children’s toys and apparel.
And I’m no wowser. Loves me a drink and sporadically backslide on the smokes. But FFS, we’ve got tens of thousands of kids across Australia running around the in XXXX and Carlton tank tops!
@100
I’m not necessarily calling for an ad ban, I just don’t seem to recall the intense campaign (ala pokies ) against the ciggies ad ban back when ever it was. It may be that today the ban wouldn’t have gone through such is the increased influence of business over both major political parties. I mean when people can make a statement such as,
“CEO’s input is easily measured in dollars. Simply eliminate the post altogether, then watch the share price & financial performance of the firm.”
in all seriousness your start to realise how successful business has been at convincing the rest of us if their indispensability.
“I just don’t seem to recall the intense campaign (ala pokies ) against the ciggies ad ban back when ever it was”
You obviously never had your house slathered with vile threatening slogans in red paint and your locks superglued because your dad was a Buga Up vigilante then.
I made that statement Patrickb. It is tongue-in-cheek of course, being as it does not push a conclusion either way.
However, it is very apt. You’d prefer I followed it with a “for” or “against” conclusion?
@102
Er … no. But is that how the pokies campaign is proceeding? I thought it was a little more, well, conventional. My point was more to do with the way business as a whole now uses paid media to influence govt. policy. I don’t recall that happening with the ciggies ban. Did your dad get an AO or something?
I apologise, Steve.
I assumed that because all your posts were angry and resentful and full of half-baked right-wing opinions that you must be a right-winger.
From now on I won’t refer to any right-wing opinions as right-wing. And I will now refer to all right-wingers as sugar-plum fairies.
“Angry & resentful”? ? ? ? (on a hobby site? come one)
“Half-baked right wing opinions”? ? ? ? (reading for comprehension isn’t your strong point, is it?)
Perhaps it may be more apt to spell your name with an “a” instead of an “i”
@57 and I’ll wager put in longer hours and work harder than the whingers on 3x their wages.
@79,leading people being paid $150,000/annum believing that they work harder and are more deserving of government handouts than people who are paid a third or less than they earn, because low income earners are obviously lazy bludgers.
Steve @ the Pub. You demolished my arguement totally earlier by retorting against my hysterical “The truth is that is is hard work, it involves personal risk and doing unpleasant things and dealing with unpleasant situations where if you screw up people can end up harmed or dead.” with the simple “But for a legal aid lawyer? (Come on!)”
My two points in response.
-I bet a lot of legal aid lawyers work their arses off for not much pay. And yes, if they screw up then their client is in jail. So yes, low pay high stakes again.
-I wasn’t argueing for equal pay across the board. Just that maybe it might be nice to pay people in such professions a living wage. One that might cover their rent and food.
Still you’ve demolished all my arguements with your post at 89. I’m going to be agitating for the complete demolishment of the welfare and social services sector as the unemployed, under-employed, the unwell both physically and mentally can just learn to behave themselves like most taxpayers have to. I don’t know why anyone didn’t think of it earlier. (Well they did in Victorian England but obviously we can do better now.)
Got a life problem? Stiff upper lip chaps and learn to deal.
tssk @ 107, I live in hope that an Abbott government will re-introduce workhouses. Making those lazy bludgers pick oakum in exchange for our support is only fair!
Ginja @105: If everyone started referring to right wingers as “sugar plum fairies” who would vote for them? The whole right wing thing is about being more macho that thou.
OK, not quite true. I am sure that there are some old Democrats lost at he bottom of the garden who would think anyone labelled as sugar plum fairies must be a nice person.
Craig Mc@29:
That’s because it’s a pig of a thing to grow, and a pain to dry and cure. Sure, you can grow a couple of plants without too much hassle, and air-dry the leaves then shred it. That’s easy enough, and will make you a couple of pouches of tobacco. The problem is that people rarely smoke tobacco like they smoke dope, and they’re used to paying for mass production using third world labour. Scaling it up is hard work and requires a lot of attention to raising your crop. Tobacco is not a weed like marijuana, it’s a fussy plant with many irritating properties. That’s why government doesn’t worry about the grow your own people.
I grew up in a tobacco growing area and we had a tobacco kiln on the farm. We could have made it usable too. But the only people I knew who did that were experimenting with mass producing marijuana. And dope was a real weed where we lived – it grew wild along the river banks and in the bush, and we had to kill it off or it would smother the native vegetation.
I think and hope plain packaging is just another step on the way to prohibition. Let’s hope they crank the excise up intil it covers the full cost of the smoking.
tssk, one could be forgiven for assuming you weren’t a star of the high school debating team.
Term your stuff “hysterical” if you wish, self-assessment is a matter for you.
Legal aid lawyers may or may not “work their arses off” for not much pay. That wasn’t the point. They aren’t facing any danger, nor any unpleasantness, nor any consequences for incompetence or negligence. (When you’re on the bottom of your professional heap, there isn’t anywhere to fall to)
To suggest that if a legal aid lawyer “screws up” their client goes to jail shows only an unfamiliarity with legal aid lawyering.
#1 Very little legal work is in criminal law.
#2 Even in criminal law, the chances of a client going to jail, if convicted, are very slim.
#3 Serious cases, where a jail term may apply for a convicted client, aren’t usually handled at the sharp end by a legal aid drone. In my town they are handled by private practice barristers, who are flown a thousand miles & engaged full time for the case.
Nobody is aruging against a “living wage” for workers in the community sector. They are already getting that. The pay rise case was about paying them in line with what someone else, somewhere, is being paid. Living wage didn’t come into it.
My point, something that is often missed by the shallow thinkers who often infest this site, is that determining an economic value for labour is complex when that labour is not producing an economic outcome.
This is similar to the scenario faced by every CEO of a “social enterprise” (now there’s an oxymoron for you). They are providing a service that is not paid for, has no economic outcome, but still somehow they have to pay for it.
Living wage? My husband works in the Aged Care industry, and if we had to rely on his wage to live, we wouldn’t even be able to pay rent and buy food. However, the work is hard and heavy (lots of back injuries in aged care workers) with lots of responsibility. I’m sure you’d soon find out how much aged care workers are worth if you had to take care of all of your aging relatives at home on your own!
Crass: Nobody is disputing what a sterling job they do. In fact nobody has mentioned Aged Care workers, except to note that they are in a different sector, & not part of the pay rise plan being discussed here.
I do find it mildly amusing – in light of some of the chest beating about how it’s only the profits of vile big tobacco that plain packaging threatens, the evil capitalists can just suck it up – that the first government actually making noises about suing Australia in the WTO over infringement of trademark is …… Cuba.
http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/aap/8373664/cuba-ukraine-warn-on-plain-packaging
When a WTO committee discussed the legislation the other day, a number of other developing countries – Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nigeria – also complained more generally about the adverse economic impact the legislation could have on them.
But then the Australian left supporting measures that will help keep poor brown people poor is a fairly regular occurrence I suppose.
John D: I can’t deny it – with the likes of Christopher Pyne and Alexaner Downer, the right cornered the market on macho long ago.
@SATP – yes, such a sterling job you don’t think they’re worth more than pennies. Thanks for your concern.
Crass, please copy & paste where I stated such.
A “living wage” for workers living where, SATP? If it’s this country, it’s a barely living wage. If it’s a wage that you wouldn’t care to be paid, considering the work that has to be done, I guess a pay rise is long overdue.
Jane: “Living wage” means just that. It does not mean “affluent wage”.
Pay rises are not “due” or otherwise on the basis of how much someone cares to be paid that wage, nor on how unpleasant the work may be.
There are many factors working against pay rises in the social and community sector, some of these are:
A discount for convenient location, as the jobs are largely in urban and metropolitan areas.
A discount for a workforce that is not geographically mobile, they take the job largely because of where it is, not what it is (as opposed to say, surgeons, finance traders, geologists etc, who will move for work)
No direct economic indicator for the value of the work (ie, there isn’t a directly measureable cash result of the work – as there is for say, a cop on a speed trap) thus making it difficult to devise a metric for pay rises.
The job is done by a workforce that, because of the nature of the job and the people it attracts, aren’t as likely to agitate & get tough over pay rises.
The employers are not profit making entities that are flush with cash. Instead the employers are in the position that as the service does not bring in income, the less the service costs the more of it they can provide.
@SATP
&
Hot from your keyboard. You are saying that if people are not being paid the big bucks, therefore their work is not of equal value. Stop splitting hairs and start thinking before you post.
SATP isn’t quite game to say that the work in question is chicks’ work, and therefore not worth as much, although I’d bet that’s part of what he means under all that obfuscation.
SATP – I think the fundamental problem is that the people they do the work for are not the ones who actually pay for it (nor are many capable of doing so). And there are no or very few equivalent positions where they or their employers can get paid directly.
So they end up in the position of someone other than the person receiving the service deciding how much it is worth as well as being responsible for paying it. And it’s always undervalued when that happens
I agree with Steve over one point in particular.
You see this all the time in teaching and nursing, two industries that survive on massive amounts of unpaid overtime.
Whenever they strike for pay the community backlash is instant. “Those lazy sods putting ME out! They don’t care about our kids/ill.” It’s why I won’t enter those fields, I would literally kill myself before asking for a raise.
Still it’s not as bad as the US where some teachers and nurses have taken to buying supplies out of their own pay to make sure students and the sick don’t go without.
Actually SATP and others, there are some metrics for the efficacy of community workers in some areas. So you can measure efficiency and effectiveness and put a price on that.
For example, two that come to mind are:
An evaluation of a mental health support program in NSW (HASI) found that the costs of delivering the program were more than offset by a reduction in hospitalisation of the clients who also were stable in their housing. Both of those outcomes have costs to government and to the client. The cost to government can be quantified as it is largely an economic cost. This review led to government agreeing to expand the program. Typically 65% of program inputs are staffing costs.
In NSW, the government has in the process of tendering for a Social Benefit Bond that will pay a premium to investors and deliverers of community services if agreed outcomes are achieved. In this case, in the areas of out-of-home care for children and in recidivism. They have established metrics and achievement of outcomes that are x% higher than the current system is delivering will result in a payment, because it will still be cheaper than what currently happens.
Disclaimer – I work in management in a not-for-profit that will be significantly affected by the Fair Pay case. My organisation is supporting the case, but anxious about funding wages for services not funded by government (about 20% of budget).
Having been a youth worker earlier in my career, I have the utmost respect and time for those who work with clients with mental illnesses, on the streets and who work in child protection … and do this year in, year out. It’s some of the hardest work and it takes a very special person to have the personal resources and resilience to support people through crisis and not fall apart themselves. I couldn’t do it.