Same Work Same Pay Policy

SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 16:42
Last edited 13/06/2023 - 17:21

What's everyone think about the Same Work Same Pay policy I'm getting biased YouTube ads for?

Generally when corporations kick up a fuss and start advocating against policy it's because those policies end up benefitting people/workers rather than their bottom line. Few corporations would realistically say "this guy's been loyal and worked here for so long, let's just pay him more than the bloke who we just hired." I feel like they'd be more inclined to say "let's pay the loyal worker here just as much as this guy that just joined because he'll love the equality and feeling one with the team."

If they wanted to raise your pay depending on how long/knowledgeable you are in the role they'd probably add more incentives and a recurring pay bump on an annual basis above any mandates by the government

So please, share your thoughts on why the policy leaves a foul taste in the mouth of these corporations, or why it's horrendous policy

EDIT: Found the ad on its own https://youtu.be/mYPUMg7-KEc

And thought I'd link to the overview/paper in the main post as well https://www.dewr.gov.au/2023-workplace-reform-consultations/…

Poll Options expired

  • 136
    The policy is good!
  • 113
    The policy is bad!
  • 116
    I have no clue but came here for comments to give me an opinion and also like voting!
Education & Work

Comments

  • Hybroid on 13/06/2023 - 16:44
    +39

    Why do you still have YouTube ads in this day and age? There's so many methods to remove them. Do yourself a favour.

    • SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 17:24
      -6

      Because they cucked Vanced and I'm scared of learning to sideload random .apks for Revanced

      Pihole I don't want to worry about for cashback sites

      YouTube Premium I'm trying to convince my dad to upgrade via VPN to a family plan but is hard because he doesn't want to pay for a VPN and is stubborn about bargain hunting

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 13/06/2023 - 17:40
        +3

        The vpn it’s a one time thing not on going and you can use a free one at that to sign up

        • SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 17:52

          Will have to let him know, thanks Jimothy. Was gonna ask which free one's best but I'll just check the old posts

        • PeelThis on 15/06/2023 - 09:28

          What free one do you recommend?

          • darkmoss on 15/06/2023 - 12:22

            @PeelThis: Adblock Plus

            • PeelThis on 15/06/2023 - 13:47

              @darkmoss: I don't think that's a VPN though

              • darkmoss on 15/06/2023 - 14:40

                @PeelThis: my bad… i thought you were looking for a free adblocker… i didn't read it properly

                • Scrooge McDuck on 15/06/2023 - 21:55

                  @darkmoss: What options are there for watching YouTube on TV via a Nintendo Switch controlled by an Android phone.

            • Devastator0 on 16/06/2023 - 07:21
              +2

              @darkmoss: FYI that AdBlock (Plus) sold out quite some time ago and allows companies to pay them money to allow their ads through. The general rule of thumb these days for an adblocker extension is uBlock Origin.

              • darkmoss on 17/06/2023 - 14:06

                @Devastator0: I haven't noticed any ads coming through, though I'll try uBlock Origin just in case… cheers

          • SpainKing on 15/06/2023 - 14:18
            +1

            @PeelThis: The post outlining the process recommends Windscribe or Urban VPN

            • Scrooge McDuck on 15/06/2023 - 21:59

              @SpainKing: Are you getting that [orange branded mobile company I don't want to promote] ad with the crusty old woman disrobing?

              I'll never give them a cent again!

      • Mechz on 13/06/2023 - 19:04
        +7

        Newpipe apk is clean and keeps your viewing ad free.

        • DiscountForThee on 15/06/2023 - 08:28
          +2

          Also going to recommend Newpipe. Very easy, and lots of options and customising as well

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 13/06/2023 - 19:52
        +5

        Hey spankers, re:

        'YouTube Premium I'm trying to convince my dad to upgrade …'

        Just use the Brave browser to watch YouTube. No adds. Simple.

      • bmerigan on 13/06/2023 - 21:01
        +1

        I used tunnel bear VPN, it's free. You only need it for the 5 minutes you're doing the signup.

      • merivetio on 14/06/2023 - 16:19
        +3

        https://github.com/revanced-apks/build-apps/releases

        It's from their official github account - effectively zero risk of sideloading a dodgy APK.

      • stedmaster on 15/06/2023 - 15:05
        +1

        You can get firefox from android store then get the ublock origin add on, run youtube web mobile, just as good, no sketchy stuff.

        You can still use YouTube mobile app too if you like the layout better, but as soon as an ad comes up you just sharelink and then select firefox, on my phone its instantaneous and pops up with the video no ads.

    • iDroid on 13/06/2023 - 22:25
      +8

      YouTube has ads?

    • pr0o on 14/06/2023 - 08:59

      I remove the ads from my laptop but haven't seen how I can do it on my mobile + TV. Can you suggest any method?

      • terrys on 14/06/2023 - 10:15
        +2

        "on my mobile"

        I rarely used the YouTube app on a phone - you are logged in and getting everything Google want to throw at you. Open it instead in Opera - a browser you can use incognito and actually close and clear rather than just pushing it into the background.

      • idonotknowwhy on 14/06/2023 - 19:58
        +6

        Firefox Mobile with Ublock Origin.
        Or ReVanced

        • DiscountForThee on 15/06/2023 - 08:29
          +1

          Newpipe is another option as an easy to install apk

      • dojomojo on 15/06/2023 - 11:36

        On TV: Firestick with SmartTubeNext installed.

      • scix on 16/06/2023 - 11:28

        A global method is Pihole on a Raspberry PI or other low power computer (or openwrt installed on a router) which will cover all devices at home. If you can't do that, Android has various methods for blocking ads at a system level. If your TV supports android it might be viable there, if not, you could buy a third party streaming device that uses Android TV, and block there.

  • orangetrain on 13/06/2023 - 16:58
    +3

    I haven't seen the ad and can't find the government proposing anything? What does the corporate hate? I'll vote for it.

    I'm sick of the profiteering making my wages worth less.

    Edit: This one has an ad: https://theconversation.com/business-is-trying-to-scare-us-a…

  • brendanm on 13/06/2023 - 17:03
    +25

    Isn't this about people being paid the same through labour hire companies, as they would if they were a direct employee? Not whatever you've assumed it is?

    • SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 17:12
      +1

      That does seem to be what it's about but I haven't read the consultation paper on it, this is just how it's being framed by the Minerals Council. You can see Chris Kenny promoting their point of view here

      https://youtu.be/CCnWsKCVITc
      0:25 seconds in you'll also see the ad I'm talking about which feels incredibly disingenuous

      The paper can be found through this link which is an overview

      https://www.dewr.gov.au/2023-workplace-reform-consultations/…

      Unfortunately I'm one of the people who would be voting for the third option in the poll which is why I may not have explained it correctly and am looking for guidance

      • turbochris on 14/06/2023 - 09:34
        +13

        Chris Kenny is an absolute muppet, not sure why anyone would listen to anything he said.

      • terrys on 14/06/2023 - 10:17
        +6

        "You can see Chris Kenny"

        His being offered any credibility shows we have really gone to the dogs.

      • surg3on on 15/06/2023 - 08:57
        +5

        "Minerals Council"…yeah I wouldnt trust anything they said

    • mskeggs on 13/06/2023 - 19:38
      +16

      The business council adverts are designed to mislead, and since there is no actual legislation proposed yet, they are trying to grab the mindshare.

    • WeeDeePotato on 16/06/2023 - 18:48

      This is a good thing, corporate’s just don’t want to pay people decent money.

      Edit - this was meant to be against the thread in general, not as a reply to anyone in particular

  • Drakesy on 13/06/2023 - 17:20
    +5

    Government's been doing this for years, the overachievers get penalised and the underachievers get rewarded.

    Everyone then works at the lowest common denominator's level.

    • outlander on 13/06/2023 - 18:02
      +24

      I think you'll find 80% of people think they perform 'above average'

      • GordonD on 14/06/2023 - 18:09
        +14

        Four of your workers perform at level 5. The other one performs at level 3. The average is 4.6. 80% of them are performing above average. There is no law in mathematics that prevents more or less than 50% of people being above average. More than half a class can get above average scores. More than half of drivers can be better than average drivers.

        • saintmagician0 on 14/06/2023 - 23:12
          +5

          'average' can mean median or the mean.

          If you are talking about numerical scores, then it's usually the mean, so what you say is usually true. Depends on how you score… it's not possible for more than half of students to get an ATAR score that is above the mean.

          When someone says they are an above average driver, do they mean "when we rate drivers on a numerical score, I think my score is higher than the mean", or do they mean "I think I'm in the top half of driving ability, rather than the bottom half"?

          Is this a job where people do get scored and the scoring system is more robust than each boss scoring their own direct reports on a 1-5 scale based on their own individual judgement? If not… I'm inclined to interpret "I'm better than average" to mean "I think I'm better than about half of the other people". It is, unfortunately, not possible for 80% of people to be at or above the 50th percentile…

          • greatlamp on 15/06/2023 - 03:17
            +1

            @saintmagician0: That's all true but if people are using 'average' to refer to the median they are using the term incorrectly.

            Does the average person understand the meaning of the word?

            • saintmagician0 on 15/06/2023 - 09:47
              +1

              @greatlamp: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average

              1 a : a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
              2 a : an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean
              b : a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series

              Average can mean median (or mode), although I agree that it usually doesn't.

              Average also means "typical". That's why it's funny to say that the average person has fewer than 2 legs. The 'average person' is a typical person who has two legs, not a numerical mean. The average driver usually refers to a typical driver. The average employee… could be the typical employee, or an employee with an average numerical score, that would certainly depend on context.

    • mskeggs on 13/06/2023 - 19:39
      +15

      Do you support 3rd party contractors being brought in to do the work at a rate lower than the agreed enterprise bargain?

      • Drakesy on 13/06/2023 - 19:43
        +4

        In our department they get brought in but are paid 30-40% more than the full time permanent staff.

        I wouldnt work in gov for less than the eba

        • terrys on 14/06/2023 - 10:22
          +10

          Ah yes, but they are "free market" workers rather than bureaucrats so clearly worth more.

          The fact they are often the same workers recently made redundant merely shows the value-adding power of the market - and also moves public policy from the realms of civil oversight and management and into the sunlight uplands of "commercial in confidence".

    • p1 ama on 14/06/2023 - 23:59
      +13

      Government's been doing this for years, the overachievers get penalised and the underachievers get rewarded.

      I don't get why there are people who, whilst clearly being uninformed, just swoop in with some "hot take" that's completely irrelevant.

      Nobody is proposing a policy which forces everyone to be paid the same regardless of competence. The policy is specifically related to what is paid for employees vs. through labour hire organisations. It's a very specific and niche policy which largely relates to (largely) the mining industry. What it tries to address is the use of labour hire organisations (basically sub-contracting) as a way of side-stepping an EBA.

      • Drakesy on 15/06/2023 - 12:02
        -2

        But in most cases in gov the contractors are paid more than those within the EBA.

        In fact, i've seen people leave their EBA job only to come back as a contractor in the same position.

        • ThithLord on 15/06/2023 - 13:33
          +3

          ok, so, regardless of your anecdotal evidence, what do you know about the actual policy being put forward?

        • p1 ama on 15/06/2023 - 14:49
          +5

          That has nothing to do with this policy though, which is to specifically address companies who use labour hire organisations (not even contractors) as a means of side-stepping an EBA

  • CyberMurning on 13/06/2023 - 17:21
    +1

    but but each human is unique?

    • SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 17:25
      +16

      Not me, I'm the only non-unique one around

      • OzzyOzbourne on 16/06/2023 - 12:05
        +1

        Same here

        • iDroid on 16/06/2023 - 21:44

          Oh, you're the unique copycat…

  • tsunamisurfer on 13/06/2023 - 17:26
    +36

    Few corporations would realistically say "this guy's been loyal and worked here for so long, let's just pay him more than the bloke who we just hired." I feel like they'd be more inclined to say "let's pay the loyal worker here just as much as this guy that just joined because he'll love the equality and feeling one with the team."

    This is not my experience.

    From what I have seen :

    • The loyal worker will just get CPI increments if at all, pushing him lower and lower from the market rate.
    • A new worker would come in knowing the market rate and be brought on at the market rate.
    • If the loyal worker leaves the company and seeks the market rate from a new employer, the current employer will then be tempted to finally offer market rate.
    • Only in rare circumstances, where skillsets are hard to find AND retain, the company may voluntarily go to market for the current rates and offer it to everyone. I have seen this happen only twice as people were leaving en mass, most recently a mine in WA was losing staff at a rate that made the mine non-functional.
    • Wiadro on 13/06/2023 - 22:00
      +2

      if the loyal worker doesn't leave after 3-5 years in the same, than they are always at a disadvantage.

      • coffeeinmyveins on 14/06/2023 - 09:34

        always

        Lol. Any company that has options/shares would like a word with you.

        If you joined Atlassian 5 years ago you'll be getting stock refreshers and be sitting pretty. It's not cut and dry.

        • Mikeer on 14/06/2023 - 23:55

          You're right, it's not cut and dry, it's cut and dried.

    • npnp on 15/06/2023 - 08:49
      +1

      Someone who stays at one place for a while may mean he/she is loyal but not necessarily better. I usually find people who stagnate in one place for 10-20 years might be a bit complacent than someone who just joined thus is energetic. On the other end of the spectrum are those who jump from place to place in short notice. I'd say 4-5 years is the sweet spot. If I'm a business owner I wouldn't mind offering more for someone who'd bring some energy to the team (of course after a probation period to rid of those jumpers). Same pay policy will discourage this diversity of work force. In a same team you'd have persons with the same job title but with massive differences in IQ, abilities, skills, experiences etc hence producing different performance. Their respective pays should reflect this. Anyone doesn't agree with it can of course leave and find a better paying alternative, it's a free market isn't it?

  • USER DC on 13/06/2023 - 17:35
    +5

    To be brutally honest WORK quality IS NOT SAME in same INDUSTRY everywhere dude, So I am really unsure how the policy will work out. I aint saying I dont like the policy's intention to drive wages higher with multi employer bargaining etc. I think that is a good idea, but the implementation, and results from it I aint too sure how will they work out especially where more work is demanded, that job should be payed with higher wages, as an example.

    Someone working alone at a restaurant vs someone working in groups at a restaurant. Obviously common sense would say that person working alone has to carry out more work, take into account meals break that have to be taken while keeping the business open. While Both case scenario, persons are employed under the exact same job title, - team member.

    Similarly at other places some workplaces demand staff to A LOT LOT more work, (e.g. Aldi vs Colesworth) Sure staff is getting payed by time, but one workplace requires someone to be working like twice or thrice as hard as other person at same job title, in the same industry with different employer.

    • SpainKing on 13/06/2023 - 17:58

      Work quality's definitely not the same but if a company doesn't offer a workload commensurate with the pay then people won't work there or those desperate for jobs will be able to get them rather than it being through nepotism or 10's/100's of job applications

      I'm not sure if it precludes employers from offering extra incentives to entice workers but I can see it encouraging benefits to get employees

      I also could see them saying "this guy's not a high volume shelf stacker, he's a cashier who sometimes stocks shelves so we'll pay him the cashier/regular volume shelf stacker wage". (E.g being a lot more specific about each role/introducing new categories to make it harder to collectively bargain)

    • Ultimate Gattai on 15/06/2023 - 00:23
      +1

      As a Coleworth employee, I can confirm I'm more or less doing the work of 3 people each day and the store barely functions as it is, I'll be happy if I can find another job (although it looks like that might not happen until after EOFY).

  • whatwasherproblem on 13/06/2023 - 18:15
    +3

    I feel like they'd be more inclined to say "let's pay the loyal worker here just as much as this guy that just joined because he'll love the equality and feeling one with the team."

    Surely you meant that they'd say "let's pay the loyal worker here many times less than what the new hire makes because we're banking on said loyal employee being too lazy/cynical/jaded/demotivated to do anything about it".

  • tonka on 13/06/2023 - 18:17
    +2

    Global companies don't value local skills as much as they value an easily manipulated workforce.
    My sense is that this rule is to start to discourage these companies from supplementing a downsized core workforce with labor hire persons that can be hired / fired and stood down with no consequences.

  • happydude on 13/06/2023 - 18:51
    +5

    I agree that strict EBA level employers (like government) and should not be able to employee labor hire staff below their rates. Labour Hire should not be used to circumvent hard fought EBA agreements.

    But other than that the government should just keep out of private enterprise.

    • oO0Dam0Oo on 15/06/2023 - 09:22
      -1

      So if labour hire companies are made to pay the same rate as EBA employees, this would mean that the labour hire providers margin would be known, which would lead to competing companies reducing their margin to compete with one another. This may impact their viability with plenty of substandard 'labour hire' firms willing to do things on the cheap whilst sacrificing safety and compliance.

      • Jolakot on 18/06/2023 - 12:03
        -1

        Oh man, companies competing with each other on price! What a horrific outcome

        • oO0Dam0Oo on 20/06/2023 - 06:09

          At the expense of compliance and safety was my point. Next time your driving next to a B/double at 110kms/hr think about that.

  • thatonethere on 13/06/2023 - 19:29

    Where i am i see our labour hire brought on at extraordinary hourly rates compared to standard staff. Sometimes they are better than staff, the only advantage to management is that they can be trimmed and cut without consultation and redundancy expectatioan from an enterprise agreement.

    Also see it witb new staff hires where they get more as that what it takes in the current market.

  • Brian McGee on 13/06/2023 - 19:50
    +15

    An ad from a dirty industry lobby group, I wouldn’t trust what they say anymore than I’d believe king Elon will take over the transportation industry with the Tesla Semi-competent.

  • Protractor on 13/06/2023 - 20:01
    +14

    When big business whinges you know the policy is spot on. That's all you need to know.It has always been this way.
    The govt is just trying to undo the LNP's rampant & deliberate policy distortions in the workplace that makes greedy pr*cks richer.
    And the ads are using the same demented strategy Trump uses. Reverse Logic. Accuse your 'enemy' of what you are doing (have done).

  • Doyen on 13/06/2023 - 20:50
    +4

    I am looking forward to seeing some balancing of pays in the AFL. Same experience, same time on the field = same pay?

  • JIMB0 on 13/06/2023 - 20:53
    +18

    As usual the far right has tried to confuse the situation to their advantage. This law is about stopping the underhanded tactic of undercutting EBA rates by using grubby labor hire companies to employ people for lower wages and conditions. Generally in an EBA there are different pay rates with the labor hire people being on the lowest rate, while the full time staff are on the higher rates, this is normal practice. So the existing staff with more experience are already paid more and will continue to be paid more. This law is about stopping people being paid less than the minimum rate.

  • amzinguserman on 13/06/2023 - 21:32
    +13

    Yeah I know its a good policy when the Mineral council et al. publishes this propaganda when everyone is complaining about cost of living

    The liberal party and their stooges are trying to confuse the name of the policy with the actual details and start making up weird hypothetical scenarios to say its a bad policy.

    I think the confusion has already started.

  • miwahni on 13/06/2023 - 21:36
    +18

    There was a Four Corners episode on Qantas late last year / early this year that mentioned how one flight could be staffed by people from four to five companies; Qantas has a subsidiary company that supplies aircrew, plus other labour hires. And all could have the same level of experience and all be doing exactly the same work, but be paid at different rates.
    Likewise in mining there are companies that outsource a large degree of their workforce and pay these workers less than the ones who are directly employed.
    The legislation is an attempt to make these situations more equitable.
    It's not designed to stop productive workers from being paid more, or longer term employees from receiving wage rises above their contemporaries.

    • JIMB0 on 14/06/2023 - 09:08

      Qantas has a subsidiary company that supplies aircrew, plus other labour hires

      I worked at company that had a similar structure. When questioned about why the labour hire workers were on less money they smugly said it's out of our control, take it up with the labour hire company.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/06/2023 - 09:49
      +2

      Ahhh Qantas!!!
      I can speak of Australian Air Express (AAE) which is wholly owned by Qantas - injuries galore lifting freight in and out of air freight containers (small) and air freight holds (very small). They used Chandler McCloud (CM) contract labour hire to do the heavy lifting of freight in and out of these confined spaces with freight weighing up to 50-60kg!. Even a slight injury and CM rotates the worker off the AAE site.

      Why, easy AAE (Qantas) is a Commonwealth Self Funded Workers Compensation Insurer; that is all compensation claims are directly paid by Qantas. Whereas the guys (yes only guys-bigots) who are contracted by CM are insured under the NSW workers compensation which places limits on the claim value. I could go on but this is the reason for the structure. https://www.srcc.gov.au/current-self-insurers/list-of-curren…

      TLDR: Qantas self-insures the low risk bureaucracy whilst contracting out the high risk, high value freight handling injuries onto the payout limited and restricted state based insurers.

      • Carmen Sandiego on 17/06/2023 - 12:42

        That sounds exactly like what I imagined they're doing. TYVM :)

  • AustriaBargain on 13/06/2023 - 23:41
    +10

    When a cabal of industry groups and employers band together to run ads claiming the policy will mean they will have to pay their employees less, you can be certain the policy will mean underpaid employers will be paid more and that it is overall good policy. If the cabal believed their claim that it would mean employees would be paid less then they would be in full support of the policy.

  • jrvb42 on 14/06/2023 - 09:52
    -1

    Same work, same pay is exactly what the State or Commonwealth Public Servants get. Put your hand up if you're happy with either state or commonwealth public servants and their work quality and output….

    • greatlamp on 15/06/2023 - 03:31
      +3

      Ironically this policy will affect contractor employees, who are the people you are most likely to interact with and describe as 'government employees '.

      Actual government employees are paid less for the same work and experience as an employee in the private sector. They accept less pay for 'better working conditions', meaning an employer that actually respects employee rights. In white collar jobs, EBAs are practically unheard of.

  • RichB on 14/06/2023 - 10:06
    +1

    With my cynical hat on, seems semi-obvious there's a few issues being deliberately conflated here in order to push an agenda that gets them the outcome they want.

    I.e. The real beef here is with labour hire arrangements where labour is essentially transferrable, that's why they exist, and so equitable pay for equivalent work is not unreasonable.

    However, the concept is falsely being put forward and applied on the basis of ordinary employment arrangements and contexts where it doesn't appear reasonable, and done so deliberately in order to garner support that ultimately it's a BAD idea.

    I'll take my cynical hat off now.

  • doctordv8 on 14/06/2023 - 10:28
    +2

    If this does go ahead, it may well stop the Scum (*****Hire) Companies that currently pay the newbies - less experienced and less qualified way more the the elders doing the Exact Same Job…. well employed to do the exact same job….but do not know yet how to do the exact same job.
    I know of at least one hire/service crowd doing this as it is so difficult to find new staff, yet they do not look after their existing staff. Go figure!

    • JIMB0 on 14/06/2023 - 11:42
      +1

      I think you've missed the point. This law is to ensure someone through labour hire is paid the same as if they were directly employed by the company.

  • Waltervp on 14/06/2023 - 10:39
    -2

    Nothing is ever the same. Think of five star restaurants and chefs. Some people do a better job, some are more reliable, some do more. I'm all for the same starting wage for same job but if you value your staff you reward them, and that encourages them to stay and others to try harder too perhaps. Money talks.

    • amzinguserman on 14/06/2023 - 18:20
      +4

      This policy has nothing to do with your scenario.

      Read the paper. It will make sense.

  • Aneurism on 14/06/2023 - 17:26
    +1

    It also means no performance bonus for those who excel in their roles if they are team based with the same role classification. This policy is a win for the lazy and incompetent (but they won't know because they would have never earned a bonus in their entire career)

    • Willy Beamish on 14/06/2023 - 18:38

      The lazy person you were talking about downvoted your post but as expected was too lazy to leave a comment.

  • dylan345 on 14/06/2023 - 17:55
    +2

    I agree that if a company is paying money to advertise to the public regarding government policies, I feel that something is wrong or that there is likely no good reason to do so besides profits.

    Kinda like when my TV was bombarded with anti carbon tax ads paid for by mining companies telling me that my life will be worse off with a carbon tax and the avg blue collar worker will suffer. That same carbon tax now implemented by many other governments providing excellent results especially compared to the carbon credit system we now use.

  • Willy Beamish on 14/06/2023 - 18:36
    -1

    Yes, it's terrible and being pushed by dumb commies.

    If you've held any job whatsoever they would know that just because someone is in the same role doesn't mean they do the same job or even perform at the same level.

    Absolute nonsense is all it is that will lead to lower performing employees because there is no incentive to do your job when the other people are not and getting paid the exact same.

    • greatlamp on 15/06/2023 - 03:35
      +2

      In your scenario (which isn't relevant to this policy despite what the ad suggests), doesn't the employer have an incentive to get rid of low performing employees, whatever they are paid? They would have more incentive to get rid of low performers if they have to pay everyone the same.

  • hasher22 on 14/06/2023 - 19:42

    Good and bad?

    But IMO there are too many variables but it all comes down to work vs quality, for example, company wants to hire 2 managers, someone with 5 years experience and starts on 70k but newbie manager comes in, same position with 1 year experience and is on 70k as well……

    On paper, sure equal pay is good but technically this shouldn't happen as the person with more experience should be on higher pay due to experience but also we don't know if the manager with 5 years experience is worse than the 1 year experience manager. I've had new managers that were damn excellent and knows how to lead and manage with less than 2 years experience and managers with 6+ years experience and they are utter trash…..

  • SpicyStew on 14/06/2023 - 19:49

    i want efficient and productive workers not hard workers.

    also use adblock to stop this cringe

  • ToyotaCrownHybrid on 14/06/2023 - 21:15
    +1

    Meh, I found out I was doing more work than others and getting paid less, I asked for a pay rise and did not get one.
    I now do less and got put on a PIP, can't bloody win.

  • duluxe2000 on 15/06/2023 - 00:00
    +1

    My take is that this is another fight between Business and Union. For long, Businesses try to circumvent the Enterprise Agreement and Labor Hire is probably born to get away with the expensive EA. Now Union wants a quick fix about that by introducing this policy. Union's existence basically depends on EA n desperately wants to save it and why not, it's a decade since Labor is in gov again.

    The policy sounds dumb because pays should scale with responsibilities AND productivity. I guess it should be Same Job Same Pay Range sounds more reasonable. However I don't know how EA works (in details)

    • greatlamp on 15/06/2023 - 03:42
      +1

      it should be Same Job Same Pay Range sounds more reasonable

      You should assume the actual policy will be reasonable, like you imagine. Government policy isn't that bad in this country that peverse outcomes are common. That's why when it goes wrong it's media sensation.

  • MrThing on 15/06/2023 - 03:44
    +1

    wheres the vote option for

    "youtube has ads?"

  • npnp on 15/06/2023 - 08:55

    Someone who stays at one place for a while may mean he/she is loyal but not necessarily better. I usually find people who stagnate in one place for 10-20 years might be a bit complacent than someone who just joined thus is energetic. On the other end of the spectrum are those who jump from place to place in short notice. I'd say 4-5 years is the sweet spot. If I'm a business owner I wouldn't mind offering more for someone who'd bring some energy to the team (of course after a probation period to rid of those jumpers). Same pay policy will discourage this diversity of work force. In a same team you'd have persons with the same job title but with massive differences in IQ, abilities, skills, experiences etc hence producing different performance. Their respective pays should reflect this. Anyone doesn't agree with it can of course leave and find a better paying alternative, it's a free market isn't it?

  • payless69 on 15/06/2023 - 09:33
    -1

    Dan 4 pm?

  • qaz182 on 15/06/2023 - 12:42
    +3

    All this equality/ESG/trans/race stuff is all the same at it's core.

    (quoting American statistics here but the principles apply to Australia and all of the Western World)

    Back in the 70s wages were much higher and it was possible to raise a family on a single income. Over time with the US dollar going fiat (not gold backed) and demographics (baby boomers entering the workforce at the same time and competing for jobs), productivity gains accrued mostly to business owners/managers/shareholders and not into raises in real wages for ordinary workers. It meant that it took two normal incomes to raise a family and now to the point now where that is often not even enough.

    Instead of actually fix the system (ensure working people receive enough money for their work), instead big companies whose profit margins require squeezing wages lower and offshoring jobs to cheaper jurisdictions, start talking about "trans rights" and "wage gaps", DEI and ESG. It's a way of appearing to do something but in a way that doesn't involve actually doing anything to fix the issue.

    Politicians to the left jump on this too because again, it's a way to look like you care but actually do nothing to close the income inequality gap.

    The way to actually fix it is for greater productivity gains (more people working and working in roles where they are actually effective in creating wealth) and to ensure those workers get their share of economic productivity gains of a growing economy (split big businesses with too much market power, stronger labour unions, etc)

    TL:DR
    All (male/female/trans/etc) lower and middle income workers need real (inflation adjusted) wage rises and all this "woke" stuff is meant to keep people fighting amongst each other for the scraps while income inequality continues to grow and the top end of town are unaffected.

  • tetsuma on 15/06/2023 - 13:32
    +2

    Let me know when we're mandating capping the % difference in hierarchical pay so CEOs can stop overpaying themselves.

  • zathras on 15/06/2023 - 14:05
    +4

    Michael West explains who's behind the ad campaign.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niFUry-CAyc

  • us3rnam3tak3n on 15/06/2023 - 16:44

    Everything I know about the topic I learned from here:
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-07/same-job-same-pay-wor…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join