Unemployment Rate Stands at 5.9% While Agriculture Industry Suffers from Workers Shortage. High Personal Income Taxes The Cause?

xdigger on 09/04/2021 - 10:32
Last edited 09/04/2021 - 10:33

Mind boggling news today from the ABC that Australia unemployment rate stands at 5.9% while our agricultural sector let crops die due to lack of workers. Millions spent on overseas workers which could have been spent on Aussies workers instead. Is Australia's high personal income taxes the cause of this uniquely Australian phenomenon?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-04-07/nsw-ag-workers-…

Is Australia's high personal income taxes and consequently low take-home pay the cause why Australians would rather go on jobkeeper/jobseeker rather than seek gainful employment and impact our national labour productivity? I can definitely empathise with that. Having worked locally and abroad in Hong Kong and Qatar (tax havens) I would argue there is a case to be made for Australia's high personal income taxes to be cut to increase employment rates and productivity, if the Big Coal-enamoured government could bring itself to increase taxes on giant corporations like Google/Apple and the miners, who will not offshore their operations just because Australia hiked corporate taxes because they need our natural resources!

And on a personal note just because I'm a big ol' greenie at heart, bring on an environmental corporate tax on the miners like Gina Rinehart while we are at it!

Education & Work

Comments

  • Quantumcat on 09/04/2021 - 10:36
    +126

    Millions spent on overseas workers which could have been spent on Aussies workers instead. Is Australia's high personal income taxes the cause of this uniquely Australian phenomenon?

    Where would you get that idea from? No, it is because fruitpicking etc pays less than minimum wage, often with exorbitant accommodation and meal costs removed so people get nearly nothing, and it is seasonal work so you can only do it for a few weeks at a time and then have to move to a new location. And when there's no work you still need somewhere to live. People can't go renting houses for a month or two in between gigs, and they would end up with negative money if they kept their rented house all the time even when they were hundreds of km away on a gig. It only suits backpackers and anyone who enjoys being itinerarant and lives in a caravan or enjoys camping as a lifestyle choice and has no children or spouse (or friends even).

      • Phlume on 09/04/2021 - 10:59
        +44

        Do you have any evidence that a decrease in personal income tax will increase productivity and decrease unemployment like you say because the article linked does not mention anything regarding income tax.

          • Phlume on 09/04/2021 - 11:24
            +27

            @xdigger: Is this actually direct causation from having low personal income tax? I'd like to see the actual evidence showing the relationship between low personal income tax and the employment rate & productivity.

            I too would love a reduction in my personal income tax but would that be nationally beneficial to the economy and would it be justifiable for employment and productivity like you say?

            • orangetrain on 09/04/2021 - 11:57
              +1

              @Phlume: There's the other side of argument, that raising taxes as part of guaranteed employment to eliminate, not just reduce unemployment. It happened before in Australia. But somehow I think OP wants to avoid discussing that.

          • NatoTomato on 09/04/2021 - 13:15
            +7

            @xdigger: Do you think 0% unemployment is a good thing?
            Here's a pretty basic article on why it's not a good thing, and why praising Qatar for 0.11% unemployment not be as effective as you may thing. I'm also just an ozbargainer though, but I've heard this and read it from a fair few economists in the past few years.
            https://www.thoughtco.com/what-a-0-percent-unemployment-mean…

          • Pacify on 11/04/2021 - 00:52
            +11

            @xdigger: Did you just use an Oil state with a completely unbalanced and unnatural economy like Qatar as an example? Like what on earth lmao

            • macrocephalic on 12/04/2021 - 10:28
              +3

              @Pacify: And a huge workforce of immigrant workers who are stranded when their passports are taken away and treated almost as slaves?

              • abb on 12/04/2021 - 11:48
                +2

                @macrocephalic: Upon hearing there are no taxes and slavery is effectively allowed, OP has jumped on the first flight to Qatar

      • petry on 10/04/2021 - 20:29
        +1

        minimum wage gives a ballpark max of around 40k per year - half of that is taxable at 19% . there are no reductions in tax for the lowest paid in the new brackets. minimum wage is bugger all in australia - and pickers get charged for accommodation and other costs etc..

        weekly comparisons with other countries are meaningless without adjustment.

      • Pacify on 11/04/2021 - 00:51
        +13

        That's complete nonsense. Trickledown economics don't work, have never worked. Giving the wealthy tax cuts doesn't increase productivity or increase employment.

      • ripesashimi on 12/04/2021 - 00:39
        +1

        That bullshit concept has been spouted back since 1995, and 25 years later, I don't get how anybody could still believe in it

    • Intoxicoligist on 10/04/2021 - 18:13
      +6

      Not to mention the geographically diverse locations you're required to work in. The pay is the main reason its not done by anyone with better alternatives. Places I've been treat workers as day labourers, pay X per Y picked (usually crates of produce), and its not exactly easy work (picking in fields, lots of bending, hot weather, etc).

      Is it worth unemployed people from the city moving to regional areas in order to work a month or two fruit picking before the crop is done? Do you ask them to travel with the crops and then when the harvest is done do they move back to the city, settle down in the nearest small town and try to get a job, or back on centrelink?

      Harvest jobs are by nature short term and cyclical. This suits backpackers pretty well, but sucks big time when you want to put down roots somewhere.

      • nephilim on 10/04/2021 - 20:57
        +2

        Literally advertising jobs in gawler on the SA gov funded fruitpicking website, 20mins drive from the area with the highest unemployment in the state.. Elizabeth.

        And a lot are not seasonal, you think potatoes are?

        • gringo on 11/04/2021 - 23:34
          +3

          you can get better paid work clicking a few buttons on the internet.. fruit picking is probably right up there with solving captchas for bitcoin.. and solving the captchas won't destroy your body or give you skin cancer

          if you want some gruntwork done.. better pay up. It's not the workers job to figure out how you can be profitable

          And if a tourist visa wasn't involved the backpackers wouldn't do it either

      • macrocephalic on 12/04/2021 - 10:32
        +2

        And ironically, an unemployed person moving to a regional location would likely cause them to lose their unemployment benefits - as the regional areas have higher unemployment rates than the city. The argument that unemployed people should move to regional areas to work in agriculture is just populist bashing; it's not supported by the evidence at all.

    • CalmLemons on 10/04/2021 - 23:18
      +2

      Have we forgotten the fact that fruit picking is hard labour and no one in Australia wants to do hard labour, literally, especially when they are paid peanuts and don't get to have 20 smoko breaks a day?

      • furyou on 11/04/2021 - 22:37

        So I guess battlers rather work less for more pay, than work more for less pay! And chance to get jobseeker on top.

    • Zachary on 13/04/2021 - 15:16

      People can't go renting houses for a month or two in between gigs, and they would end up with negative money if they kept their rented house all the time even when they were hundreds of km away on a gig. It only suits backpackers and anyone who enjoys being itinerarant and lives in a caravan or enjoys camping as a lifestyle choice and has no children or spouse (or friends even).

      That would all be alleviated if they were paid $40 an hour, making up for living so far away from your home or any civilised place….then renting a house wouldnt get you negative money.

  • SF3 on 09/04/2021 - 10:37
    +20

    Having worked locally and abroad in Hong Kong and Qatar

    You should know the answer to this…

    Can you see high earner or educated people from Hong Kong or Qatar go work at a farm (even if they were unemployed)? Unlikely.

    Also places like HK, there is a lack of support for the unemployed (and lacks education) so they would do almost anything to work… unlike JobSeeker.

      • SF3 on 09/04/2021 - 11:03
        +14

        Economics 101

        Theory determines people's behavior… that's news to me. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be how real world works.

      • GrueHunter on 10/04/2021 - 20:20
        +9

        Would that be the Economics 101 you didn't take?

      • derrida derider on 11/04/2021 - 22:26
        +7

        As someone who IS a trained economist, not just an Ozbargain one, my usual response to when someone cites "Economics101" is that it is very clear that they never studied Economics 201 or 301.

        Because most economics degrees teach you all about supply, demand and markets in Ec101 and then spend the rest of the degree teaching you why simple Economics 101 reasoning is wrong.

        • macrocephalic on 12/04/2021 - 14:19

          Yeah it seems that you can build a function to fit the data fairly easily, but if you want to build a model that actually predicts the result of input changes then you have to consider a lot more of the system than most people want to - and 'the system' wrt economics can be all of society.

      • Icecold5000 on 13/04/2021 - 18:30

        Congratulations on one of the most idiotic threads in OZB. Claiming to be an environmentalist while looking favourably on Qatar, a country which imports indentured labour from the 3rd world to work in dangerous conditions for a pittance while witholding their passports. But hey, they’re all good for low tax rates. Don’t you have any morality at all?

        https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/03/qatar-wo…

        https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/exploitat…

    • SF3 on 10/04/2021 - 23:01
      +3

      Also a very important point both Hong Kong and Qatar has budget surplus, they can afford to have low or nil taxes.

      Hong Kong only introduced a minimum wage from 2010, prior to that it’s employer’s discretion.

      Qatar is super rich from their oil… they also provide free benefits to their citizens (again due to, government earn a ton of money from their oil). Actual Qatarians are is approx 300k from ~2.3m population the rest are low paid labor. The expat labor force is used to build their “modern” “I’ve made it” country… Australia does not have such slavery labor laws.

      OP, maybe you should find out more about Qatar’s expat labor conditions before you jump to conclusions.

  • spackbace on 09/04/2021 - 10:40

    And on a personal note just because I'm a big ol' greenie at heart, bring on an environmental corporate tax on the big miners while we are at it!

    Mining companies already pay huge GST bills (WA says you're welcome!), so I wouldn't necessarily agree with that

    As to why people aren't fruit picking… well, would you?

    • xdigger on 09/04/2021 - 10:44
      -5

      I'm gainfully employed presently, but definitely if I'm out of work that would be something I would consider to support my family if needed. But I'm the black sheep of the Australian population, apparently.

      • spackbace on 09/04/2021 - 10:54
        +11

        There's other industries crying out for staff as well, farmers etc would need to pay more than these to entice people to do the manual labour work. Which they won't, so it goes round in circles. They'd rather hire backpackers etc, pay cash in hand, than your average unemployed person

        • ozhunter on 09/04/2021 - 11:01
          +4

          would need to pay more than these to entice people to do the manual labour work.

          Hard to compete with the government giving out money for free.

          • xdigger on 09/04/2021 - 11:14

            @ozhunter: Precisely the gist of my argument. Lower personal income taxes to increase national productivity, but I suspect that wouldn't fly too well in Canberra with pollies in the pockets of corporate lobbyists.

            (My personal favourite is the former Defence minister Christopher Pyne joining the defence industry as an "adviser" after he left his Defence portfolio to be repaid handsomely after the billions he given to them during his Ministerial term.)

        • star-ggg on 10/04/2021 - 18:14
          +7

          Economics 101 is if the labor demand in an industry is high, wages will go up which will increase supply. No need to fiddle around with the taxation system

        • Gumster on 11/04/2021 - 15:12
          +1

          Its a bit narrow minded the farmers can't afford to pay more the supermarkets paying peanuts for produce driving the price down so far.
          The only way the farmer can survive is to have backpackers that they pay very little money but offer food/accomodation in return, for the work

          Backpackers get the advantage of doing there rural agricultural work for the extension on the visa.

      • Intoxicoligist on 10/04/2021 - 18:14
        +3

        The problem is that if you get a job easily enough, it could end at any time. Once the harvest is over you've got to find another job.

        • Quantumcat on 10/04/2021 - 21:08
          +5

          Or wait weeks or months to be allowed back on Centrelink and not be able to survive in that time… If they made Centrelink easier to get people wouldn't mind taking these sorts of jobs as there wouldn't be risk of being left penniless on the street

      • derrida derider on 11/04/2021 - 22:35
        +3

        But the point is that you couldn't afford to do that if you're unemployed. Because you'd be paying two sets of rent and accomodation and your pay is likely to be miserable. And of course when the picking ended you're likely to trouble with Centrelink - "why did you leave your last job?", "do you now have over $5000 in liquid assets", etc.

        Seriously, there has long been evidence that making the dole hard to get has the perverse effect of making people on it reluctant to take temporary work (including trial positions), because there's no guarantee of being able getting back on the dole afterwards.

    • ThithLord on 09/04/2021 - 11:37
      +7

      Bahaha are you seriously defending how much tax Mining companies don't pay? Are you for real?

    • VVamo on 11/04/2021 - 08:01
      +8

      If you actually seriously look into getting this farm work as an unemployed Australian you'll see a lot of it is hot air and talk.
      The jobs just aren't there for Aussies in reality.
      Farm are businesses and many do not want large numbers of Aussie workers (who are aware of their rights) doing a season in the industry and shining a light on what is going on in terms of pay, conditions and treatment of workers. They will happily let a seasons crop go to waste rather than open up the practices of the farming industry to the light of day.

      You also have to ask how feasible is it for an average person who is already paying for somewhere to live (rent or own) to up and drive 10 hours to then pay rent on a second place all for a months work at sub minimum wage. You legit might even lose money after travel and accommodation costs.

      Don't get me wrong I am sure there are some legitimate farms who are hit hard by loss of immigrant labor right now but don't believe everything you hear in the press about "lazy Australian workers won't take this great farm work ". This is just lobbying by businesses who are attempting to pressure government to re-open their migrant labor supply ASAP.

  • orangetrain on 09/04/2021 - 10:41
    +13

    Australia used to have 75% tax on high income and virtually zero unemployment.

    In 1951, the top marginal tax rate for incomes above £10,000 what is equivalent to $425,000 today, was 75 per cent.

    From the introduction of White paper on full employment, does this sound familiar?

    Despite the need for more houses, food, equipment and every other type of product, before the war not all those available for work were able to find employment or to feel a sense of security in their future. On the average during the twenty years between 1919 and 1939 more than one-tenth of the men and women desiring work were unemployed. In the worst period of the depression well over 25 per cent were left in unproductive idleness. By contrast, during the war no financial or other obstacles have been allowed to prevent the need for extra production being satisfied to the limit of our resources.

    So, what proof do you have that reducing rich tax will reduce unemployment?

  • pegaxs on 09/04/2021 - 11:02
    +25

    Lol @ Aussie workers picking fruit…

    That means leaving their subsidised inner city accommodation, smashed avo breakfast toasties at 2pm on a Sunday afternoon after a big night, to go live in some arse backwards country town to do back breaking work for less than what Newstart payments afford them…

    Boomers won't do the work because it's beneath them/they are the owners
    Gen Xers wont do it because mortgage to the hilt and families
    Gen Y won't do it because it's not in and air-conditioned office and you can't get in at the ground level as an Operations supervisor
    Gen Z won't do it because better money to be made on Instagram, YouTube, Twitch and OnlyFans

    • netjock on 09/04/2021 - 11:37
      +5

      Exactly. I posted previously how the government was subsidizing relocation and like 6 people took it up.

      Simple way you put it is people expected to stay put and be taken care of.

    • orangetrain on 09/04/2021 - 11:37
      +45

      No one will do it because:
      - Government will suspend all your benefits because you moved
      - There's no support once you get there
      - You can get sexually assaulted or raped
      - You get free shitty accommodation to feel like a farm slave
      - Oh, and pay is shit

      Funny how so many people want cushy FIFO miner jobs but hate fruit picking for some reason.

      • pegaxs on 09/04/2021 - 14:39
        +4

        Fruit picking = outside, horrible conditions, heavy labouring work, long days and $15/h or per picked box commission.

        FIFO miner = air conditioned equipment, sit on your arse, easy work, long days and about $120/hour…

        Yeah, why would anyone pick FIFO over fruit picking.

        • Jugganautx on 09/04/2021 - 15:54
          +4

          Don't think you know how much fifo workers get paid. It definitely isn't $120 an hour.

          • pegaxs on 09/04/2021 - 17:48
            +4

            @Jugganautx: You’re right, it’s probably far in excess of $120/h… and I’m sure that no fruit picker gets anywhere near close to $15/h either now that we consider it…

          • Stromae on 10/04/2021 - 18:27
            +2

            @Jugganautx: He has obviously never worked on a mine site. Easy work and air conditioned equipement haha. Let me know which mine site you know of where there are air con around underground drillers and processing plants.

            • netjock on 12/04/2021 - 13:14

              @Stromae: Most people are just dreamin'

              They are dreamin' about all the possible bad things that will happen to them. It is what happens when you don't do enough research and prep on what will happen but what could happen.

      • Intoxicoligist on 10/04/2021 - 18:19
        +10

        Lots of people here overlooking the benefits getting cut because you moved. We punish people who move to look for work and then complain when they don't. Not to mention the other valid points you raise.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 09/04/2021 - 11:50
      +3

      Boomers are now 60+ (cut off is usually considered 1960). Not the right age profile for fruit pickers. Too.many risks falling off ladders, or not being able to straighten up after 10 minutes of strawberry picking. Not really a job for your grandparents/parents.

    • Ghost47 on 09/04/2021 - 12:55

      Lmao, truth.

    • Yotta00 on 10/04/2021 - 19:43
      +1

      Lot of Gen Y has mortgages and very young families as well.

      • skittlebrau on 10/04/2021 - 21:39
        +4

        Yep, some Gen Y people are almost 40 years old.

    • tikei on 10/04/2021 - 20:29
      +3

      I'm guessing you're gen X?

  • Mr Haj on 09/04/2021 - 11:14
    +6

    Australia is one of the lowest taxing nations in the OECD https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-brochure.pd…

    The reason nobody wants to pick fruit is because of our high minimum wages we have set for uneducated and unskilled workers, as well as our generous welfare system…

    • Mr Haj on 09/04/2021 - 11:20

      Besides this, isn't fruit picking already tax free?

      • netjock on 09/04/2021 - 11:38
        +2

        Or if you imagine everyone on JobSeeker works up to their weekly allowance would be enough to fill the fruit picking gap. People would just rather stay put and figure out how to stretch JobSeeker to covering their living expenses.

      • derrida derider on 11/04/2021 - 22:47

        Virtually all unemployed people who go fruit picking will end up earning well under the tax free threshold anyway.

    • petry on 10/04/2021 - 20:11
      +1

      maybe you should point what your figure includes as a tax wedge, because without an explanation of the measure being used your assertion has no real meaning.

  • jm7 on 09/04/2021 - 11:16
    +8

    A family friend is a manager at a large supermarket warehouse and said they couldn't get workers (i.e. pick packers) last year because JobSeeker was so high and the difference in 'pay' was minimal.
    The incentive to work (especially labour intensive roles) is not there. Why would you work full time as a pick packer or fruit picker when the take home pay is not much more than JobSeeker?

    • netjock on 09/04/2021 - 11:39
      +1

      Picker packer could probably work to become supervisor or ware house manager.

      JobSeeker allowance recipients don't get promotions and higher rates of pay.

      • Kingfield on 12/04/2021 - 11:59
        +1

        Trust me man, people that work as pick packers aren't exactly career oriented.

        • netjock on 12/04/2021 - 13:10

          To their own detriment. You can lead the person to the brains trust but you can't get them to take it all in.

    • orangetrain on 09/04/2021 - 11:50
      +12

      Maybe the issue is high injury risk and poverty wages are not much incentive? Sounds like your family friend wants cheap expendable labour resources while people want to be treated like humans.

      • jm7 on 09/04/2021 - 12:38
        +1

        The large supermarket chain I am referring to is a multinational that pays legal wages. Perhaps minimum wage for low skilled jobs is the issue?

        • ozhunter on 09/04/2021 - 12:40
          +2

          Perhaps minimum wage for low skilled jobs is the issue?

          Australia has the 2nd highest minimum wage in the world…and somewhere in the top 5 purchasing power.

          • jm7 on 09/04/2021 - 12:43
            +5

            @ozhunter: Living costs in Sydney and Melbourne are also astronomically high. Minimum wage probably isn't much more than the supercharged JobSeeker that people could claim for the last year. Not to mention JobSeeker = discounted car registration, utilities, pharmacy, public transport, council rates, rent…

            • brendanm on 09/04/2021 - 17:32
              +1

              @jm7:

              Living costs in Sydney and Melbourne are also astronomically high.

              Then don't live in Sydney or Melbourne.

              • Intoxicoligist on 10/04/2021 - 18:20
                +1

                @brendanm: Ok but if you move Centrelink will cut your benefits.

                • brendanm on 10/04/2021 - 18:42
                  -4

                  @Intoxicoligist: Then, I dunno, get a job?

                  • Quantumcat on 10/04/2021 - 21:11
                    +4

                    @brendanm: How do you think you would go if you removed your degree and all your experience from your resume, and then you moved to a new location with $10 in your bank account? It would take a while to find a job, especially if you're couch surfing or on the street and don't have access to a shower, nice clothes or any transport. Then add in some social problems too and maybe you'll realise "just get a job" isn't the answer.

                    • brendanm on 11/04/2021 - 07:05

                      @Quantumcat: I don't have a degree, but why would you want to remove all of that from your resume?

                      I had a quick look, and couldn't find anything about Centrelink stopping payments just because you move anyway.

                      In addition, the person I replied to initially was talking about minimum wage, not Centrelink.

                      • Quantumcat on 11/04/2021 - 07:49

                        @brendanm: They stop payments if you get a job. So if the job is only guaranteed to last two months at best, then you'll be left several weeks without payments while you fight to get Centrelink again, why the hell would any sane person do that.

                        The reason I said to remove your degree and experience, is of you are considering fruit picking as work you surely don't have any other options. Also consider we are talking about people that have been on Centrelink for a long time here, they wouldn't be qualified for any decent permanent jobs or they would be doing that (or only on Centrelink for a few months at most while they job hunt if maybe they have a bad personality or something and don't do well in interviews)

                        • brendanm on 11/04/2021 - 08:07
                          -1

                          @Quantumcat: I never said anything about fruit picking? I said move out of Sydney or Melbourne. There are more jobs available outside sydney and Melbourne than fruit picking.

        • brendanm on 09/04/2021 - 17:31

          Perhaps minimum wage for low skilled jobs is the issue?

          What do you think a fair rate would be to take something out of a box, and put it on a shelf?

          • Quantumcat on 11/04/2021 - 07:55
            +1

            @brendanm: Enough to provide people with the minimum required to live decently and not be working poor like in the US, where you have people working two or three jobs @ 60 hours + a week and still not being able to afford the basics like medicine, internet, rent.

            Maybe you can't afford a fancy holiday or a nice car but you should be able to be housed, have internet, decent clothes, enough nutritional food, etc. That's what the minimum wage is about, people having the right to not be horribly destitute if they are working full time. If there are industries that can't afford to pay that much they should shut down or invest more in robot workers to do the same job if it is that simple.

            • brendanm on 11/04/2021 - 08:09
              -1

              @Quantumcat: We aren't in the US. Our minimum wage is a living wage.

              • Quantumcat on 11/04/2021 - 08:13

                @brendanm: Sorry I thought you were saying people should be paid less for putting boxes on shelves. Guess I misunderstood.

                • brendanm on 11/04/2021 - 08:33
                  +3

                  @Quantumcat: No, the person I quoted was suggesting they don't get enough. I think $20 an hour to do the most basic of tasks with no qualifications, skills etc is pretty high.

    • caitsith01 on 12/04/2021 - 13:30
      +4

      Why would you work full time as a pick packer or fruit picker when the take home pay is not much more than JobSeeker?

      And what does your family friend draw from this?

      (a) JobSeeker is too high and poor people should be further demonised by having the pitiful amount of $600/fortnight removed from them so they are forced to take awful jobs for shit wages; or

      (b) If we are having trouble attracing people to do a given job and our wages are so bad that people would rather be on unemployment benefits then we should try raising what we pay people so that they choose to work for us?

      No doubt if (b) is suggested you will then be told "but then stuff will cost more". Which carries with it the implication that people should work for subsistence wages rather than people with money paying a tiny bit more for things.

      • brendanm on 13/04/2021 - 17:05
        -1

        C) some people are just lazy/high.

  • OpenHand on 09/04/2021 - 11:20
    +64

    No, I would say income tax is probably the last reason that people consider when not taking these jobs.

    Especially considering that the worst of these jobs pay less than the minimum tax bracket (e.g. 0 tax owed by the worker) and probably don't go via PAYG or proper payslips anyway, and the best of them would fall into the low income tax bracket anyway.

    Many pacific islanders and migrants work in these areas, as even meagre pay in AUD translates well back to their home countries. However, these are not living wages in Australia. Definitely nothing you could support a family on. These people are often exploited.

    The bigger issues are:

    1) Seasonal, casual, unreliable work.

    2) Massive relocation issues - remote work, and seasonal, meaning you might need to relocate multiple times a year. Not that practical when you have to sign 12 month leases (not that you could afford it on these rates). This does however, make it more suitable to transient workers e.g. backpackers and people who would return to another country after some time, or may be moving around the country anyway.

    3) Massive bargaining imbalances, e.g. you are almost guaranteed to be living and working in terrible conditions and have no bargaining power to improve them.

    4) Massive issues in the industry including slavery, wage theft, and assault and sexual assault issues being not uncommon.

    5) Massive information disparity, e.g. you probably don't know you're getting into the above situations until you've landed on a farm.

    There are plenty of okay fruit picking jobs and lots of people work seasonally in some regions, but the more remote it gets, the harder it will be to find workers.

    There's no shortage of investigations into the terrible conditions on many farms. Also, while considered unskilled work, as most pay piece-rate, you actually need to have a lot of experience and time on the job, as well as being physically fit, to meet minimum wage requirements.

    Most Australians would be better off getting a job at a cafe. Even an industry like hospitality, which is rife with exploitation, is across the board better. Better pay, conditions, everything.

    It's a complex issue, some farmers do the right thing. There are systemic issues like the big supermarkets constantly pushing prices of goods down at the point of picking. Bad actors, including recruitment companies and contractor companies abstracting workers' conditions from the farmers. Bad actors including farmers taking advantage of workers.

    Tax is not the issue, in fact, it's nowhere near the issue.

    Australian fruit picking exploitation claims prompt push on protections against 'modern slavery'

    Australian berry and citrus farms most at risk of having slave-like working conditions, Woolworths modern slavery report finds

    ‘Modern slavery’: Proof of why these Australian farmers won’t employ locals

    Australian slavery inquiry told fruit pickers 'brainwashed' and trapped in debt

    Among the nectarines you buy at your supermarket this summer are those that have probably been brought to you by black market labour.

    • Pufff on 09/04/2021 - 11:48
      +13

      Good job very thorough
      The tax argument is bollocks. Could make it tax free and most people still wouldn't do it.

      One thing I'll add is that the big 2 supermarket chains don't help by squeezing farmers which in turn leads to a lot of the issues above but that's due to customers wanting low prices at all cost. So like everything there are always winners and losers.

    • VVamo on 11/04/2021 - 08:19
      +2

      Epic post mate . Maybe even legendary !
      Do you mind if I link to this ?
      Seems I cant go a month without hearing some inaccurate non-sense about "LaZee Auzzeezz dun WaNaA work".
      Usually from someone whose never left their home town let alone attempted farm work in remote area's.

      • OpenHand on 11/04/2021 - 17:59

        Go bananas! It's all public info. In fact, I didn't track down the more hardcore investigations into it; Nick McKenzie and those journos have dug up some crazy stuff.

    • caitsith01 on 12/04/2021 - 13:32
      +3

      Great post. Pay decent wages, make people permanent employees with security and rights, clean up the shady practices of the industry and help people relocate to decent housing nearby and watch the employees come flooding in. But no, the solution is to whine about taxes (as if anyone picking fruit is going to be paying any significant tax anyway…).

    • macrocephalic on 12/04/2021 - 14:41
      +2

      Yes, one of the reasons that lots of immigrants work these low paying jobs is because they can save their money and take it home, or send it home to their family. If you're an Australian working as a picker and you manage to save $50 a week then that might buy you a steak dinner and two beers at the local pub. If the immigrant saves that and sends it home then it might pay their family's home and food expenses for the week.

      Roughly 10% of the GDP of the Philippines is remittances from overseas workers (people sending money home to their families).

  • jjjaar on 09/04/2021 - 11:35
    +18

    Fruit picking sounds like a great gig. I wonder why more people don’t do it /s

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-07/concerns-slavery-has-…

    In reality, many farms only survive because they exploited people on working holiday visas who had to do rural employment.

    • netjock on 09/04/2021 - 11:56

      Tourists always get ripped off.

    • tsunamisurfer on 09/04/2021 - 12:48
      -4

      If its slavery why do people still do it?

      There is a payoff for the visa holders to get their extensions.

      • ThithLord on 09/04/2021 - 13:58
        +6

        They get shat on for not taking the job, and then shat on for taking the job and complaining about the abysmal pay and conditions. They can't win.

        • tsunamisurfer on 09/04/2021 - 14:04
          +2

          No one should be sh!ting on them either way.

          If they want to stay longer then do it, if not thats fine too.

      • jjjaar on 09/04/2021 - 13:58
        +4

        Many of them don’t realise what they’re signing up for is actually against their rights. They’re ignorant to the laws and the farmers know this, and then exploit it.

        Just because they sign up for it, it doesn’t mean it’s not exploitation.

          • skittlebrau on 11/04/2021 - 17:20
            +6

            @tsunamisurfer: I’d encourage you to think long and hard about what you just posted because reading your posts was honestly quite shocking to me.

          • Ridiculous Panda on 12/04/2021 - 08:14
            +1

            @tsunamisurfer: When they don’t have another choice or the other choices are worse, it is still considered exploitation when you take advantage of someone even when you don’t hold a gun to their heads.
            You seriously did not know that?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join