Sally McManus couldn’t lift wages to save her own life

Via The Guardian:

Sally McManus has labelled insecure work a “virus”, calling for a target to halve the proportion of insecure jobs in Australia by the end of the decade.

The secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions will make the call in a major speech on Wednesday, warning the government that unions are prepared to fight if it cuts super rises and sides with employers over cuts to workers’ take-home pay.

The speech to the National Press Club comes ahead of the release of the Coalition’s industrial relations omnibus bill, expected to simplify conditions in the retail, hospitality and restaurant sectors by endorsing employers’ bid to replace penalty rates with a higher base rate of pay.

The bill is also expected to bolster secure work by giving casuals a right to convert to permanent positions after an extended period of employment.

According to an advance copy of the speech, McManus says the coronavirus pandemic had shown the biggest weakness in Australia’s defences and the social contract is “the fact we have far too many insecure, casualised, labour hire, gig jobs that have no security and few rights”.

McManus cites the “shameful tragedy” of five delivery drivers killed in the last two months as an example of workers abandoned by the government, tech giants and inadequate workplace laws.

She says that in 2020 “our levels of casual insecure work threatened the health of everyone and damages the whole of the economy”.

McManus says “insecure work was literally spreading the virus”, citing “2.1 million workers who [had] no choice but to work more than one job just to string together a living wage” as a risk factor.

First, lifting the super guarantee has no intellectual substance left. Modeling released by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has revealed that lifting the compulsory superannuation guarantee (SG) by 2.5% to 12% would reduce wage growth by 1.75%:

The figures are contained in documents compiled by the RBA in January – before the COVID-19 pandemic and economic slump – which forecast the increase in the superannuation guarantee from 9.5 to 12 per cent “will be largely passed through by lower wage increases from 2021″…

According to a briefing paper drafted by RBA economist Taylor Nugent, the first 0.5 percentage point increase next year will result in an immediate 0.27 per cent reduction in wages growth by June 2022.

Over the longer-term, given the “pass-through” of superannuation increases onto workers, Mr Nugent said that “long-run wages levels under each of these profiles are about 1.75 per cent below what they otherwise would have been”.

This accords with the Australian Treasury’s 650-page retirement incomes review:

[The report] warns workers are facing a “trade off” with lower wages if employers are forced to increase super.

News.com.au has confirmed the Treasury report, which has been completed and handed to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg…

[The report] repeatedly raises concerns over the “trade off” between higher super and lower wages.

Several independent analysts (i.e. not commissioned by industry) have also concluded that raising the SG will lower wages growth (other things equal), including:

Second, it has taken years to beat sense into McManus on immigration as well. And she is still only halfway there. During the pandemic shutdowns she demanded cheap foreign workers be subsidised when they simply should have gone home:

This as Australian workers suffered through the largest output gap since the Great Depression:

McManus’ recently announced recovery “plan” made no mention of the mass immigration wave that is the primary driver of insecure work:

Improve the quality and security of jobs by creating 2 million new permanent jobs and halving the number of insecure jobs.

The growth of insecure work is no accident. It is a result of a conscious business model that promotes the fragmentation of traditional employment arrangements and the shifting of financial risk from employers to workers. Casual workers, gig workers, workers employed by labour hire firms or on contracts were the first to lose their jobs in this crisis and the last to receive (and in many cases are yet to receive) any government support to keep them in employment. We need to restore balance to our labour market. To do this we need to revise our labour laws and labour market institutions; re-visit our wage fixing mechanisms; reconsider the unfettered expansion of precarious employment arrangements; and strengthen the capacity for workers to protect their rights and genuinely participate in change by organising in their trade unions. Secure jobs, higher pay and genuine consultation will drive productivity, lift living standards, increase domestic demand and lay the ground-work for rebuilding Australia and a better life for working people…

Lift wages and living standards.

This crisis has highlighted the critical nature of the work of many of the lowest paid and precarious workers in Australia who have led us through this crisis – health workers, supermarket workers, transport and logistics, agricultural workers, aged-care workers, cleaners and many others. We need to prioritise ensuring that workers are properly valued, including through reinvigorating collective bargaining, reducing insecure work and establishing a new Living Wage…

We need changes that increase workers’ bargaining power so that wage growth occurs across whole industries and lifts both domestic demand and living standards…

Strengthening and investing in public and community services that are our first line of defence against ‘shocks’ like COVID-19, bushfires and drought.

We need to ensure crucial services remain in public ownership and are properly funded. We need public investment in public services and institutions – not cuts and austerity measures. The crisis
shows that some critical services that we have relied upon the market to deliver, such as aviation, research and development, regional media, energy, utilities, transport, education and health need more active ownership, control and investment by government…

Support nation-building projects that create decent jobs and set Australia up for a better future.

In the wake of the Great Depression governments committed to building the Great Ocean Road. After World War 2 the nation embarked upon the Snowy Hydro Scheme. We need to take advantage of the historically low cost of borrowing money to invest in large national projects that create a lasting benefit to the nation, creating hundreds of thousands of new additional, secure jobs. Key priorities could include government investment in public transport projects, inter-city fast rail, sustainable public and community housing, new hospitals, schools & TAFEs and electricity transmission network upgrades…

Education and training.

As important as investing in physical infrastructure is investing in social capacity through skills and training. Too much of our education system has been reliant on exporting education to full fee paying international students, As our third-largest export, education has failed to deliver secure jobs and increasing incomes for the majority of the people who work in the industry. With the collapse of people being able to freely move around the globe the entire industry is in crisis…

Dealing with the crisis of climate change.

Many nations around the world are looking to rebuild their economies in ways that reduce emissions and the physical and social impacts of climate change and restore nature. Australian Unions call on the Federal Government to align our economic recovery with a goal of achieving net zero emissions by mid-century at the latest and to make a greater contribution to global efforts under the Paris Agreement…

Improve social, health and economic outcomes for people and communities that experience disadvantage.

While improving the quality and security of jobs will improve our domestic economy and deliver significant progress towards addressing inequality in Australia, further interventions are necessary. Australian unions support actions and investment to improve public and social housing, address homelessness, and invest in physical and social infrastructure in Aboriginal communities…

Embrace industry policy and ‘Australian made’.

The international economy will recover much more slowly than our domestic economy. As highlighted above we need to bolster both supply and demand locally. This will require initiatives to build domestic demand, support Australian businesses, create good jobs and ensure that workers have the income to buy more of the products and services produced and provided within Australia…

Yet we saw it again and again and again over the past cycle. A ready supply of cheap foreign workers displaced Aussies, promoted a boom in labour hire, dissolved IR rules, delivered a plague of exploitative practices and a pandemic of wage theft.

Like Labor, McManus has made a few noises about too many temporary worker visas but she still supports mass immigration which is almost as bad.

The fact is, like Labor, the ACTU has no idea how to lift wages and diminish insecure work.  It simply will not happen while Australia welcomes a permanent labour supply shock into an economy sporting a giant output gap, a circumstance that has prevailed for a decade while Ms McManus signaled her virtue.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. She is a goose who spends more time bathing in praise from her one-eyed twitter followers.

  2. I read her stuff on Twitter. When asked about why SG should be lifted? she said “compound interest’. I didn’t realise union officials were into high finance. I like the ALP but I hate Superannuation. It is as you guys say a tax rort for the rich. Hardly progressive,

  3. Poochie the Rockin DogMEMBER

    Free trade agreements followed by immigration are the cause of low wages but there is an upside? These insecure jobs are the next to be automated. When you have robots serving burgers, manning petrol station counters, doing deliveries & driving people places – you don’t need a slave underclass of people.

    • Robots at the petrol station counter have got to be better than the grunting and or sour subcontinentals we have at the moment.

  4. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    I’ve been involved in unions my whole life, and have consistently seen that the people leading the union are way way way more progressive than the members.

    This is not what members want.

    This morning I heard some nob on MSM talking about the irrelevance of unions.

    I’m even hearing young blokes saying “what are unions good for?”….and are happy to trade for one off pay rises. Thoughtless fools led by the likes of Mcmanus.

    They’ll find out soon why they needed a union, and then it’ll be too late.

    All these $1m salaried elites are shafting Australians everywherewe look, and we’re letting it happen.

    • So you oppose people being paid what the company paying them thinks they are worth? While I agree the wages of some of these CEO’s appear to be bordering on the ridiculous compared to what they pay the lower level employees but when you hire a CEO, you get a different value proposition to when you hire a “Fitter, turner and toolmaker”.

      The CEO brings in contacts, arrangements, relationships and staff with focused skills they know and trust.

      I think people should be aid relative to the overall value proposition they represent. People on the tools should be paid more if the productivity means the company is able to meet better outcomes and be more profitable.

      Your right about the unions being needed, but the union should focus on representative pay outcomes and not on minimum wage outcomes. When you force a company to pay people a minimum wage, thats what they pay. If the company rewards a more productive staff member and are the union goes on strike to force the same deal for others then all they are doing is enforcing minimum pay rates for all.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        Are you asking if I agree with CEO $1m salaries? Let alone $12m plus.

        Absolutely not.

        Are you asking me if some people should be paid a twentieth of elite salaries?

        Absolutely not.

        Should ABC hosts be on $400k? Middle management across Australia $300k. RBA, Treasury, $1m. Union Secrataries $1m. The Project $1m?

        Start the revolution I reckon.

        • So you believe that someone who generates $200m in revenue for an organisation should be paid the same as someone who generates $200k….

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            No. I didn’t say that, but the disparity is far far too great, and the numbers on high wages is ridiculous with most of them doing FA. Examples HR, oh&s, compliance, middle management etc.

            AND, we know it hasn’t even started.

          • Sorry to say it totes, but the reality is a lot of the management types do generate that sort of “value”.
            They are the @rseh01e that lays off half the workforce to be replaced by outsourced cheap labor.
            Is union leadership elected? If so why haven’t you given them the @rse yet?

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            bjw678

            Yeah they’re elected. I don’t know the circumstances with Mcmanus, but unions I’ve been involved with, no one wants the union official jobs. So the one’s who end up doing it are passionate wokesters.

            I know you’ll say “why haven’t you done the right thing and run the union?”….so….wiithout revealing too much, it’s always worked fine for me in the unions I’ve been involved with.

          • “, no one wants the union official jobs. So the one’s who end up doing it are passionate wokesters.”
            Replace union official with parliamentarian and passionate wokesters with those willing to extract the most personal gain and you have explained why the larger “democracy” works as well as that within the unions.

            Edit: there is probably quite a lot of crossover between passionate wokester and personal gain…

          • So you believe that someone who generates $200m in revenue for an organisation should be paid the same as someone who generates $200k….

            LOL. Leave the poor straw man alone.

            The trouble with “what the company thinks they’re worth” is that “the company” ends up just being a big circle-jerk of transient senior management and board members voting themselves more money.

            The CEO doesn’t personally generate $200m in revenue. Even if he personally negotiates some perfect (if ethically questionable) deal based on his contact list and history, the rest of the organisation still has to deliver whatever-it-is that the customer(s) is/are paying $200m for.

            A Big Dumb Rule that could be implemented to control out-of-control upper management salaries is to say the highest paid employee cannot be receive more than 10x (or whatever) the lowest paid employee (across their entire remuneration). With additional rules in place to stop obvious loopholes like firing everyone and hiring them back as contractors, rather than employees, etc.

            (Aside: this same model should be used for all public service employees up to and including the Prime Minister, with their remuneration based on a multiple of the base dole. Could even legislate that these are the same – ie: PM is paid no more than 10x the basic dole, and if he wants a pay rise then he needs to increase the dole.)

            That way when an organisation is wildly successful, everyone involved benefits proportionately – as they should.

            Another alternative would be punishingly high taxes to incentivise reinvestment of revenue into people and business growth, like in the past.

          • It’s not a straw man. I was using an exaggerated situation to point out that people should be paid for the value they bring to the company.

            If a CEO uses his connections to bring $200m more business then he definitely does personally deliver that. The fact that the workers have to deliver on what he sold is a different argument. It may take doubling the workforce to deliver it but doubling the staff does not deliver any increase in revenue, only output. Someone still has to buy what was produced.

            Sure, if a company was

          • It’s not a straw man. I was using an exaggerated situation to point out that people should be paid for the value they bring to the company.

            It is a textbook straw man. You have fabricated an argument – everyone should be paid the same regardless of the value they provide – and are trying to refute it.

            If a CEO uses his connections to bring $200m more business then he definitely does personally deliver that.

            No he doesn’t. Even if you could somehow prove that he was the only person in the world who could have negotiated the deal(s), he _still_ relies on the rest of the organisation to deliver the actual product and/or service. If he could personally deliver it he wouldn’t need to be part of the larger organisation, would he ?

            The fact that the workers have to deliver on what he sold is a different argument.

            No it’s not.

            Someone still has to buy what was produced.

            More importantly, somebody still has to create what will be bought.

          • How can you say that it is the CEO, and not their underlings, that generate say a $200M profit. It’s hard to pin point to a CEO being the sole generator of that revenue.

          • It is a textbook straw man. You have fabricated an argument – everyone should be paid the same regardless of the value they provide – and are trying to refute it.

            Nah… You can see it that way all you want, doesnt make it so.

            Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.

            It was not a misrepresentatiuon, it was a question attempting to determine his position as something more than jealousy in regards to his opinion. Its impossible to defeat his argument that the C-Suite is paid to much because thats his opinion. I wasnt even trying to defeat his argument, All I was doing was asking a question in an attempt to reflect on the validity of his opinion in the context of value a person provides to an organisation. totesbewoke made a statement that implied that people should be paid a figure that is more in line with what he felt was appropriate so I asked a question regarding his thoughts on paying people based on what they we worth to the organisation.

            I asked this because I was interested in how his opinion was determined, I response to it He clarified that his issue was not with the overall pay difference, just the scale of the difference. NOTE that I never asked what an acceptable salary difference was, only if he felt they should be paid the same or different.

            No he doesn’t. Even if you could somehow prove that he was the only person in the world who could have negotiated the deal(s), he _still_ relies on the rest of the organisation to deliver the actual product and/or service. If he could personally deliver it he wouldn’t need to be part of the larger organisation, would he ?

            Its irrelevant if there are 30 or only 3 other CEO’s who can deliver that or a similar deal. If the business could do it without his leadership then the board should reconsider even hiring them. As I said before in the example I used It does not matter if your employees can make an extra $200m in product to sell… The product will just sit there waiting for a buyer, eventually the business would need to reduce the price to sell it…

            The fact that the workers have to deliver on what he sold is a different argument.

            No it’s not.

            Yes it is. Sure they have to deliver, but that does not change anything about the requirement to produce the $200m worth of goods/services. They dont create the demand for the product just because they produce it.

            Someone still has to buy what was produced.

            More importantly, somebody still has to create what will be bought.

            Yeah… so much more important that the workers manufacture products regardless of a market for them….

            The thing to remember is that the CEO should be paid based on the corporate results they produce as that’s their job. just like the factory floor worker should be paid based on the results they produce.

            Do I think that the majority of CEO’s are worth what they are paid, no, definitely not, but I am not a shareholder or privy to the rationale used by the board to justify the remuneration package. The problem I have isn’t the fact they get big money, its that they get it regardless of performance.

            Do I think that the average factory floor worker deserves more pay for their work, definitely. But it has to be in line with rationale analysis.

          • How can you say that it is the CEO, and not their underlings, that generate say a $200M profit. It’s hard to pin point to a CEO being the sole generator of that revenue.

            I didnt, I asked should someone who delivers $200m in revenue get paid the same as someone who delivers $200k. in this scenario the tea lady could be the one who generated $200m and the CEO only $200k.

            I asked the question to determine if totesbewoke believed in the idea people should get paid for outcomes or just based on position.

          • So you believe that someone who generates $200m in revenue for an organisation should be paid the same as someone who generates $200k….

            I’ve got two questions for you

            1) How much revenue did Adolf Godwin* generate for his organisation in Germany circa 1930/1940?

            2) How much should Adolf Godwin* have been paid for his contribution?

            For Godwin please substitute a name that rhymes with Fitler but starts with an “H”

          • It was not a misrepresentatiuon, it was a question attempting to determine his position as something more than jealousy in regards to his opinion.

            It was written as a statement, not a question.

            Its irrelevant if there are 30 or only 3 other CEO’s who can deliver that or a similar deal.

            It’s not, actually, because the context of the position you are taking is that competent CEOs are a vanishingly small group of people primarily (if not solely) responsible for the success of businesses, thus justifying their bloated remuneration packages.

            Obviously if there are thousands of others (CEOs or not) that could negotiate something even remotely similar, then the idea that said CEO is somehow “worth” orders of magnitude more than rank-and-file workers falls in a heap.

            If the business could do it without his leadership then the board should reconsider even hiring them.

            Sure. But then we come back to the contemporary problem of corporate senior leadership being an incestuous circle-jerk of self-affirmation.

            As I said before in the example I used It does not matter if your employees can make an extra $200m in product to sell… The product will just sit there waiting for a buyer, eventually the business would need to reduce the price to sell it…

            The problem is the underlying premise that without an heroic CEO at the helm the average business will fall apart and be unable to sell its products (as opposed to, say, the productivity and/or institutional knowledge of the workers).

            I would be quite willing to bet the typical business where these sorts of dollar amounts are in play, would survive the unplanned loss of its leadership in a far better state than the loss of a substantial fraction of its workforce.

            Consider a sports analogy. What would a top team recover from more quickly: the coach dying in a plane accident or 3/4 of the players dying in a plane accident ?

            Yes it is. Sure they have to deliver, but that does not change anything about the requirement to produce the $200m worth of goods/services. They dont create the demand for the product just because they produce it.

            No it’s not. You are trying to separate the inseperable. At the risk of sounding supply-sidey, any remotely decent product or service will in no small part sell itself, even in the presence of dismal leadership. Sure, good leadership will drive better sales, but the underlying argument here that demand for a successful business is mostly (if not entirely) the product of a handful of people at the top of the tree is ridiculous on its face.

            The worship of overpaid senior management needs to stop, because it is a primary driver of growing inequality, it is breaking capitalism and it is destroying our society.

            Yeah… so much more important that the workers manufacture products regardless of a market for them….

            No. Not just manufacture. Conceive (I will concede Leadership is sometimes involved in this part as well). Research. Create. Evaluate. Test. Refine. Support.

            All of these things are the foundation upon which Selling is built. You can only sell vapourware for so long, eventually you have to deliver.

            Do I think that the majority of CEO’s are worth what they are paid, no, definitely not, but I am not a shareholder or privy to the rationale used by the board to justify the remuneration package. The problem I have isn’t the fact they get big money, its that they get it regardless of performance.

            The justification is because they’re all mates on each others boards (or “networks”) and are scratching each other’s backs (this is also why they get it regardless of performance). It is _precisely_ why markets and capitalism need to be reigned in, regulated and controlled. Left alone, a feedback loop of wealth accumulates and concentrates into small groups of people increasingly insulated and isolated from the consequences of their decisions and actions. They do exactly what we are seeing, where a handful of rich cvnts sit around telling each other how awesome they are and treating everyone who works to actually _produce_ something as disposable cogs in a machine.

          • It was written as a statement, not a question.

            Sure, If you want to be pedantic, The way the comment you responded to was phrased it was a statement, but it was designed to question his position.

            Fact is if you wish to be pedantic, In that comment I never mentioned CEO, I merely ‘asked’ if his position allowed for someone who brought in $200m should be paid more than someone who brought in $200k. You decided that I was promoting the idea that a CEO should be paid huge amounts. I never said that either, in fact if you go back an read my comments all through this thread you will see I often say I think many of them are paid to much.

            But my position has always been that people should be paid based on the value they bring to an organisation and not based on the amount that prevents jealousy amongst the masses. I dont care what position in the organisation they are. Why should a factory floor worker who is 3 times as productive as the rest be paid the same?

            It’s not, actually, because the context of the position you are taking is that competent CEOs are a vanishingly small group of people primarily (if not solely) responsible for the success of businesses, thus justifying their bloated remuneration packages.

            If you have been lucky enough to have never worked for an organisation who has a really bad CEO then that might explain your disdain for them. a bad CEO can take a great company and kill it within months. only have to look at what Carly Fiorini did to Hewlett Packard to see why you might want to Hire a CEO based on experience, history and not just the cheapest you can get.

            Obviously if there are thousands of others (CEOs or not) that could negotiate something even remotely similar, then the idea that said CEO is somehow “worth” orders of magnitude more than rank-and-file workers falls in a heap.

            In terms of the ratio of CEO’s to companies, good ones are rare, I never said a CEO was by definition worth more than anyone, some are some are not.

            Sure. But then we come back to the contemporary problem of corporate senior leadership being an incestuous circle-jerk of self-affirmation.

            CEO’s selling their services to the highest bidder is no different to any other person selling to the highest bidder. The boards who appoint them think they are worth the money, they may know something about making money and running a business that you dont…

            As I said before in the example I used It does not matter if your employees can make an extra $200m in product to sell… The product will just sit there waiting for a buyer, eventually the business would need to reduce the price to sell it…

            The problem is the underlying premise that without an heroic CEO at the helm the average business will fall apart and be unable to sell its products (as opposed to, say, the productivity and/or institutional knowledge of the workers).

            Take a look at Hewlett Packard, CEO decided to go down a path that ended up in the Company having to be broken up and large parts divested to other entities in order to survive. Good and Bad CEO choices do make a huge difference.

            I would be quite willing to bet the typical business where these sorts of dollar amounts are in play, would survive the unplanned loss of its leadership in a far better state than the loss of a substantial fraction of its workforce.

            Possibly, but it really depends on so many other factors.

            Consider a sports analogy. What would a top team recover from more quickly: the coach dying in a plane accident or 3/4 of the players dying in a plane accident ?

            and yet who gets paid more in this mythical sports team?

            Yes it is. Sure they have to deliver, but that does not change anything about the requirement to produce the $200m worth of goods/services. They dont create the demand for the product just because they produce it.

            No it’s not. You are trying to separate the inseperable. At the risk of sounding supply-sidey, any remotely decent product or service will in no small part sell itself, even in the presence of dismal leadership. Sure, good leadership will drive better sales, but the underlying argument here that demand for a successful business is mostly (if not entirely) the product of a handful of people at the top of the tree is ridiculous on its face.

            Thats ridiculous, the number of times products in our society just sell themselves because they are good is extremely rare.

            The worship of overpaid senior management needs to stop, because it is a primary driver of growing inequality, it is breaking capitalism and it is destroying our society.

            Your just tilting at windmills. I dont worship the C-Suite but The Pay rates of the C-Suite are not the reasons for growing inequality. The reason for growing in-equality is because we dont live in a Capitalist society, we live in a Mercantilist society masquerading as capitalist. Our Finance and economy are driven by rent seekers who have stacked the books in favour of themselves, they often control the means of production or the means of distribution. Take a look at the dairy industry….

            Wealth begets wealth. We have so many laws that allow those with money to pay less tax while earning massive amounts of money on the capital they hold. Anyone with under $250k in income is restricted from investing freely and this has lead to the approach of real estate fascination from the middle class where they all pile in like lemmings, while the wealthy run businesses that supply and manipulate the real estate industry, making the real money with no risk.

            The problem with attacking people who make really good money doing work as if its the cause of all our social ills is that when the revolution comes those with the real wealth and power get away scott free, stay quiet and rinse repeat.

            Yeah… so much more important that the workers manufacture products regardless of a market for them….

            No. Not just manufacture. Conceive (I will concede Leadership is sometimes involved in this part as well). Research. Create. Evaluate. Test. Refine. Support.

            All of these things are the foundation upon which Selling is built. You can only sell vapourware for so long, eventually you have to deliver.

            You can also only keep paying the wages for so long while product piles up with no sales…..

            The justification is because they’re all mates on each others boards (or “networks”) and are scratching each other’s backs (this is also why they get it regardless of performance). It is _precisely_ why markets and capitalism need to be reigned in, regulated and controlled. Left alone, a feedback loop of wealth accumulates and concentrates into small groups of people increasingly insulated and isolated from the consequences of their decisions and actions. They do exactly what we are seeing, where a handful of rich cvnts sit around telling each other how awesome they are and treating everyone who works to actually _produce_ something as disposable cogs in a machine.

            So you somehow know the reasons boards hire CEO’s, Impressive..

            As for the feedback loop of wealth accumulation, Again, your tilting at windmills, your so obsessed with the idea that CEO’s getting paid more than you think they are worth is the reason for inequality. The real wealth accumulation occurs outside the C-Suite, in the investments, control and ownership of assets and distribution, tax avoidance, trusts structures etc.

            Go watch the Economics Explained video on ‘the most unequal society on earth’ . Wealth inequality is also not as big a problem as opportunity inequality. The big problem we have in this country at least is the sheer greed of those who are already wealthy, and how they limit opportunity for others.

            Just to be clear, I am in favour of paying people based on the value they bring to the organisation.
            1) I dont care if its the c-suite or the maintenance guy in bay 35a, I know of a number of situation where an employee had an idea that was patented by the organisation, the organisation made billions from it and the person whose idea it originally was got a thank you letter.
            2) Should the amount of that remuneration be as large as we see in some c-suite remuneration packages, often not. But should the jealousy of others be used as a determinant of someones pay packet?
            3) should everyone get paid the same… If they bring the same value proposition to the organisation sure, but that is never the case.

            I am also in favour of employee ownership of the organisation they work for, it works well in most cases but when hard decisions need to be made it often comes unstuck.

          • But my position has always been that people should be paid based on the value they bring to an organisation and not based on the amount that prevents jealousy amongst the masses. I dont care what position in the organisation they are. Why should a factory floor worker who is 3 times as productive as the rest be paid the same?

            Sure. The problem is that the people deciding who gets paid think they’re the main – if not only – deliverers of “value”, in no small part because the typical worker has little to no voice or influence.

            If you have been lucky enough to have never worked for an organisation who has a really bad CEO then that might explain your disdain for them. a bad CEO can take a great company and kill it within months. only have to look at what Carly Fiorini did to Hewlett Packard to see why you might want to Hire a CEO based on experience, history and not just the cheapest you can get.

            That actually demonstrates my point quite well. Despite Carly Fiorini, HP is still in business, amongst the leaders in multiple markets and still sold boatloads of product with her at the helm.

            CEO’s selling their services to the highest bidder is no different to any other person selling to the highest bidder. The boards who appoint them think they are worth the money, they may know something about making money and running a business that you dont…

            Or they’re all playing golf together.

            Mate, you need to step back here and think about what you’re saying. Because on the one hand you’re arguing that one of the big things that CEOs bring to the table is a network of peers and mates in positions of authority and influence, but on the other hand you’re arguing that they are also “no different to any other person selling to the highest bidder”.

            You won’t find many high profile senior leadership positions advertised on Seek.

            Thats ridiculous, the number of times products in our society just sell themselves because they are good is extremely rare.

            No it’s not. The idea that a company can’t sell a product or service without leadership making orders of magnitude more than workers, however, is. We know it is because we spent decades in the greatest broad uplift of living standards in history without having it.

            Your just tilting at windmills. I dont worship the C-Suite but The Pay rates of the C-Suite are not the reasons for growing inequality.

            The _attitude_ that treats workers as generic, valueless, replaceable components is.

            The reason for growing in-equality is because we dont live in a Capitalist society, we live in a Mercantilist society masquerading as capitalist. Our Finance and economy are driven by rent seekers who have stacked the books in favour of themselves, they often control the means of production or the means of distribution. Take a look at the dairy industry….

            This is where capitalism ends up.

            So you somehow know the reasons boards hire CEO’s, Impressive..

            LOL. Maybe you need to reflect on your earlier comments about how they get remunerated regardless of performance, and those same people somehow manage to keep finding work, and consider that maybe people making those decisions aren’t making them the way you think they are.

            As for the feedback loop of wealth accumulation, Again, your tilting at windmills, your so obsessed with the idea that CEO’s getting paid more than you think they are worth is the reason for inequality. The real wealth accumulation occurs outside the C-Suite, in the investments, control and ownership of assets and distribution, tax avoidance, trusts structures etc.

            No, they are simply a high-profile symptom of the larger issues. The same attitudes and behaviour that drive outrageous CEO compensation are driving economic inequality everywhere.

            1) I dont care if its the c-suite or the maintenance guy in bay 35a, I know of a number of situation where an employee had an idea that was patented by the organisation, the organisation made billions from it and the person whose idea it originally was got a thank you letter.

            WOW. A THANK YOU letter. I’m sure he was overwhelmed by such generosity. It certainly seems proportionate to the billions of dollars of value he provided the company.

            What did the CEO get ? A thank you letter AND a watch ? Or a multi-million dollar bonus ?

            2) Should the amount of that remuneration be as large as we see in some c-suite remuneration packages, often not. But should the jealousy of others be used as a determinant of someones pay packet?

            It’s not about jealousy, it’s about fairness, a functioning economy and a society not spiralling towards self-destruction.

            3) should everyone get paid the same… If they bring the same value proposition to the organisation sure, but that is never the case.

            Of course they shouldn’t. But the economy functioned just fine – in many ways much better – when senior leadership compensation was only single-digit multipliers of average workers.

            CEO (et al) pay has increased multiple orders of magnitude more over the last few decades compared to worker pay. Are you seriously going to try and argue CEOs are delivering orders of magnitude more value today – compared to workers – than they did in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s ? Would you even try and argue they are delivering relatively more value today at all, than they used to ?


          • Sure. The problem is that the people deciding who gets paid think they’re the main – if not only – deliverers of “value”, in no small part because the typical worker has little to no voice or influence.

            No, no true at all, Workers have a lot of room for voice and influence, they have just been trained over the last 30-40 years to believe that the unions, protests and strikes are evil.


            That actually demonstrates my point quite well. Despite Carly Fiorini, HP is still in business, amongst the leaders in multiple markets and still sold boatloads of product with her at the helm.

            Only because you want to ignore the need for a Good CEO and believe all are not worth what they are paid. To stay afloat they had to shut entire divisions, sell of others and had to offload close to 30,000 staff because of her decisions, the CEO that came in after had to dissect the company and clean up the mess. A Bad CEO kills a company but a good CEO can resurrect one.


            CEO’s selling their services to the highest bidder is no different to any other person selling to the highest bidder. The boards who appoint them think they are worth the money, they may know something about making money and running a business that you dont…

            Or they’re all playing golf together.

            So? That sounds more like jealousy than a valid argument. I know plenty of non CEO’s who play mid week golf ….


            Mate, you need to step back here and think about what you’re saying. Because on the one hand you’re arguing that one of the big things that CEOs bring to the table is a network of peers and mates in positions of authority and influence, but on the other hand you’re arguing that they are also “no different to any other person selling to the highest bidder”.

            You won’t find many high profile senior leadership positions advertised on Seek.

            I am not the one who needs to take a step back. Your arguing that CEO’s are not worth the amounts paid, all I am saying is that people should be paid based on what they deliver to the organisation and neither you nor I can make the call on the value proposition a CEO or a Janitor make in organisations we know nothing about.


            Thats ridiculous, the number of times products in our society just sell themselves because they are good is extremely rare.

            No it’s not. The idea that a company can’t sell a product or service without leadership making orders of magnitude more than workers, however, is. We know it is because we spent decades in the greatest broad uplift of living standards in history without having it.

            During those decades where the uplift of living standards happened people in the tops of organisations still made a huge difference as to what happened, some made it worse, some made it better. AND they got paid for it. I really dont understand how you can think an uplift in living standards equates to good products selling themselves.


            Your just tilting at windmills. I dont worship the C-Suite but The Pay rates of the C-Suite are not the reasons for growing inequality.

            The _attitude_ that treats workers as generic, valueless, replaceable components is.

            I agree that attitude is abhorrent, but just because a C-Suite exec gets paid more than you think is appropriate does not mean that is whats happening in that individual case.


            The reason for growing in-equality is because we dont live in a Capitalist society, we live in a Mercantilist society masquerading as capitalist. Our Finance and economy are driven by rent seekers who have stacked the books in favour of themselves, they often control the means of production or the means of distribution. Take a look at the dairy industry….

            This is where capitalism ends up.

            Nah, we never entered capitalism properly, those who controlled the assets and means of production “allowed” us to feel we operated in a capitalist society.


            LOL. Maybe you need to reflect on your earlier comments about how they get remunerated regardless of performance, and those same people somehow manage to keep finding work, and consider that maybe people making those decisions aren’t making them the way you think they are.

            Maybe you should reflect on what I have actually said.
            1) People should get paid relative to the value proposition they provide. No Matter what position they occupy.
            2) Sure some CEO’s provide limited value and are over paid… but that does not mean they all are.


            As for the feedback loop of wealth accumulation, Again, your tilting at windmills, your so obsessed with the idea that CEO’s getting paid more than you think they are worth is the reason for inequality. The real wealth accumulation occurs outside the C-Suite, in the investments, control and ownership of assets and distribution, tax avoidance, trusts structures etc.

            No, they are simply a high-profile symptom of the larger issues. The same attitudes and behavior that drive outrageous CEO compensation are driving economic inequality everywhere.

            Even if that is true, you never solve a problem by focusing on the symptom instead of the cause of it…. So, you manage to convince the government to put limits on CEO remuneration. The really good CEO’s piss off over seas and the chaff stay here. The rich who would have paid them $10m to do a job will still require the same outcomes but pocket the other $9.6m. They still get richer and they still screw over the poor.

            Did you even watch that video? Wealth inequality is not he issue you seem to think it is, its opportunity inequality that drives poverty. The wealth inequality is extremely low in Ethiopia compared to Holland… but there is almost no opportunity in Ethiopia compared to Holland and that is whats stopping poverty being overcome.


            1) I dont care if its the c-suite or the maintenance guy in bay 35a, I know of a number of situation where an employee had an idea that was patented by the organisation, the organisation made billions from it and the person whose idea it originally was got a thank you letter.

            WOW. A THANK YOU letter. I’m sure he was overwhelmed by such generosity. It certainly seems proportionate to the billions of dollars of value he provided the company.

            As I said many times I dont care where in an organisation someone works they should be remunerated in line with what they deliver. This was an example of where that did not happen and its shameful.


            What did the CEO get ? A thank you letter AND a watch ? Or a multi-million dollar bonus ?

            I dont know and I dont care as I am not focused remuneration at the top of organisations being the cause of all evil in the world.


            2) Should the amount of that remuneration be as large as we see in some c-suite remuneration packages, often not. But should the jealousy of others be used as a determinant of someones pay packet?

            It’s not about jealousy, it’s about fairness, a functioning economy and a society not spiralling towards self-destruction.

            Yes it is. Fairness is a subjective viewpoint only ever evaluated by the people on the ‘unfair’ side of the situation. I will re-iterate the “statement” I made that you replied to.

            ‘Should someone who brings $200m to an organisation get the same remuneration as someone who only brings $200k’

            Now forget WHO you think brings in the $200M and Forget how much you think the remuneration would be.
            Should they get paid the same and How would a remuneration be agreed that could be considered fair?


            3) should everyone get paid the same… If they bring the same value proposition to the organisation sure, but that is never the case.

            Of course they shouldn’t. But the economy functioned just fine – in many ways much better – when senior leadership compensation was only single-digit multipliers of average workers.

            When was that? I dont believe they have been only single digit multiples in over a century

            Changes in the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio (1965–2018). Using the stock-options-realized measure, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965. It peaked at 368-to-1 in 2000. In 2018 the ratio was 278-to-1, slightly down from 281-to-1 in 2017—but still far higher than at any point in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. Using the stock-options-granted measure, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio rose to 221-to-1 in 2018 (from 206-to-1 in 2017), significantly lower than its peak of 386-to-1 in 2000 but still many times higher than the 45-to-1 ratio of 1989 or the 16-to-1 ratio of 1965.

            taken from https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
            They used the stock options realised measure which is not a true reflection of CEO remuneration but even in 1965 was 20 to 1.
            I left the rest of the data in the quote so you can see the details, but you also need to remember these figures are skewed by a number of individuals whose remuneration is way outside the norm. Take Elon Musk for example, his stock options figure is worth many billions but he takes no salary… Same sort of thing with Jeff Bezos and a number of others. Taking the Sock-options-realized means these figures are exaggerated.


            CEO (et al) pay has increased multiple orders of magnitude more over the last few decades compared to worker pay. Are you seriously going to try and argue CEOs are delivering orders of magnitude more value today – compared to workers – than they did in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s ? Would you even try and argue they are delivering relatively more value today at all, than they used to ?

            I never argued anything about the value of CEO’s compared to normal workers, all I argued was that IF an organisation believes a CEO provides value for money then who am I to argue they dont.

            Saying I think CEO’s should be paid orders of magnitude more than any other employee as a general rule is just misrepresenting what I have said. If they present value in that then yes, if not then no.

          • No, no true at all, Workers have a lot of room for voice and influence […]

            No they don’t. Unionism is at about 15%, there’s a massive labour surplus, job insecurity is increasing and Government policy actively seeks to not only continue these trends, but further undermine workers rights.

            Only because you want to ignore the need for a Good CEO and believe all are not worth what they are paid.

            I am not in any way trying to ignore the need for good leadership.
            I am arguing that leadership remuneration on average is disproportionately and unreasonably high.

            So? That sounds more like jealousy than a valid argument. I know plenty of non CEO’s who play mid week golf ….

            FMD this sh!t gets tedious.

            THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE GAME OF GOLF, IT’S THE GAME OF MATES HAPPENING ALONGSIDE THE GOLF.

            Your arguing that CEO’s are not worth the amounts paid, all I am saying is that people should be paid based on what they deliver to the organisation and neither you nor I can make the call on the value proposition a CEO or a Janitor make in organisations we know nothing about.

            No, but we can certainly look at averages and trends and they show that senior leadership positions have had enormous remuneration growth over the last few decades while workers have received relatively SFA.

            During those decades where the uplift of living standards happened people in the tops of organisations still made a huge difference as to what happened, some made it worse, some made it better. AND they got paid for it. I really dont understand how you can think an uplift in living standards equates to good products selling themselves.

            Your argument is that current remuneration disparities are justified because those people are delivering proportionately greater value to those organisations through their awesome selling abilities.

            The point here is that decades ago, companies were still successful despite leadership (apparently) lacking these abilities (based on their proportionately lower wages). So either a) in the past such abilities weren’t required (and we still did really well) or b) those people aren’t really doing anything more today than they did in the past, but are now disproportionately rewarded.

            Nah, we never entered capitalism properly, those who controlled the assets and means of production “allowed” us to feel we operated in a capitalist society.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

            The really good CEO’s piss off over seas and the chaff stay here.

            Or… maybe we discover that “good CEOs” aren’t actually so rare they need to be regularly paid [tens of] millions of dollars.

            Maybe you should reflect on what I have actually said.
            1) People should get paid relative to the value proposition they provide. No Matter what position they occupy.

            The problem is you are saying what you think _should_ happen (a “rational” decision based on an objective evaluation) rather than what _does_ happen (Game of Mates).

            2) Sure some CEO’s provide limited value and are over paid… but that does not mean they all are.

            The averages and trends are quite clear (and reflective of what’s happening across all income bands generally).

            When was that? I dont believe they have been only single digit multiples in over a century

            Those are US numbers (which I didn’t want to use). The problem is not as extreme here, though the trends are similar and will continue to get worse as we become more and more like America.

            But by all means we can use the US as an example if you want, it only makes my point clearer.

            Saying I think CEO’s should be paid orders of magnitude more than any other employee as a general rule is just misrepresenting what I have said.

            No it’s not. You are saying organisations should choose to pay what they think provides value. That’s what they’ve been doing and the outcome is what we see today with outrageous executive packages and little accountability. So you are, in fact, agreeing that CEOs should be receiving the dramatically higher remuneration – on average – they receive today compared to in the past.

            It’s not consistent to say you support each individual organisation making a decision, then have a problem with the aggregate outcome of those decisions.


          • No they don’t. Unionism is at about 15%, there’s a massive labour surplus, job insecurity is increasing and Government policy actively seeks to not only continue these trends, but further undermine workers rights.

            I am starting to wonder if you actually read much of the comments that you dont agree with.

            As I said before, people do have the ability to stand up against the stuff your complaining about, They just have to band together and do it. At the moment they are all so busy sitting around blaming those slightly more successful for their positions.
            Unionism is in this state because its value in society has been undermined by people painting it as evil and lazy.

            In Canberra we have had a running strike with the Rubbish collections. and the number of people dumping on the workers because they claim they are already over paid and that the union is just lazy. Many of them saying things like, ‘I dont get paid as much as they do, why do they think they deserve more’

            Its a great big selfish circle jerk that will end in everyone killing each other while those actually responsible for the situation sit idly by and watch.


            I am not in any way trying to ignore the need for good leadership.
            I am arguing that leadership remuneration on average is disproportionately and unreasonably high.

            Based on what? on a value proposition you have decided without any knowledge of how it was come to….


            FMD this sh!t gets tedious.

            You brought up golf with no context….

            Yeah, it does get tedious, you should try defending yourself against an argument that you didnt even make….. Especially when the other person keeps cherry picking things and twisting the context. Not once have you acknowledged that I was not defending CEO’s ( or even the excessive pay rates that lead to your beliefs ) and I was defending the idea people should get paid what they are worth regardless of their position.


            THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE GAME OF GOLF, IT’S THE GAME OF MATES HAPPENING ALONGSIDE THE GOLF.

            You do realise that all human interactions are based on this kind of alliances, bonding and relationship building? Its just sociology at play. It started with small family groups, evolved into tribes, and so on. It has been with us since the dawn and it will still be there no matter how angry you get about it.


            No, but we can certainly look at averages and trends and they show that senior leadership positions have had enormous remuneration growth over the last few decades while workers have received relatively SFA.

            Lets just play a little maths game….
            99 janitors’s all get paid $100k each
            1 janitor gets paid $10,000,000…. Whats the average? $199,000

            Lets say that the company this well paid Janitor works at is really keen for him to deliver on his cleaning prowess…. so they offer him Stock options… say 100,000 shares in the company at todays price of $1. So after his year at the company it is now worth $25 a share.. He takes up the share option, and buys the 100,000 shares at $1…. and immediately sells them for todays price of $25… Thats another $2.4M…. which is added to his remuneration….

            So in that final year that Janitors wage is considered $12.4M and the average is $223K…. But most janitors are only getting $100K….

            This also applies in the executive space and it only takes a few extremely over paid execs with bonuses and stock options all calculated in to make the figures look ridiculous on averages. NOT all CEO’s are on $10m remuneration packages… there are probably only 20 who are above the $1.5M mark, the over whelming majority get less than $300K

            dont beleive me…. Please tell me ALL CEO’s get paid 500 to 1000 times the other workers … you need to stop reading the various media articles complaining about the rediculous wages of a few individuals… and NO I dont think they deliver value commensurate to what they are paid.


            During those decades where the uplift of living standards happened people in the tops of organisations still made a huge difference as to what happened, some made it worse, some made it better. AND they got paid for it. I really dont understand how you can think an uplift in living standards equates to good products selling themselves.

            Your argument is that current remuneration disparities are justified because those people are delivering proportionately greater value to those organisations through their awesome selling abilities.

            I never argued that excessive CEO remuneration packages aligned with their delivery. I argued, and I will repeat it because you seem to be either unwilling or unable to understand, that people NO MATTER WHAT position in a company should be paid based on what they deliver in value to a company. If the CEO delivers huge value then pay them for that, if its the Janitor then PAY the Janitor…


            The point here is that decades ago, companies were still successful despite leadership (apparently) lacking these abilities (based on their proportionately lower wages). So either a) in the past such abilities weren’t required (and we still did really well) or b) those people aren’t really doing anything more today than they did in the past, but are now disproportionately rewarded.

            You should read this…Long Run Trends in Australian Executive Remuneration:
            BHP 1887-2012
            might help inform you position a little.


            Nah, we never entered capitalism properly, those who controlled the assets and means of production “allowed” us to feel we operated in a capitalist society.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

            Not a no true scotsman phallacy, its an observation that explains the situation we find ourselves in. Mercantilism was the economic policy whereby the means of production, as well as the market to sell the goods were controlled by the state ( read kings, queens, lords etc ). With the populism of the concept of free markets and private ownership otherwise known as capitalism became popular after the “wealth of nations” was published by Adam Smith in 1776 there was a move towards open markets and private ownership with minimalist state intervention. The reality is the means of production and the control of markets went into the hands of a small number of individuals and they have carried the same game on ever since. All our markets and production in Australia are controlled by a small number of individuals just replace the Kings, Queens and Lords with Barrons, Magnates and political lackies.


            The really good CEO’s piss off over seas and the chaff stay here.

            Or… maybe we discover that “good CEOs” aren’t actually so rare they need to be regularly paid [tens of] millions of dollars.

            would not be that surprising when you realise bugger all of them currently do anyway…


            Maybe you should reflect on what I have actually said.
            1) People should get paid relative to the value proposition they provide. No Matter what position they occupy.

            The problem is you are saying what you think _should_ happen (a “rational” decision based on an objective evaluation) rather than what _does_ happen (Game of Mates).

            So instead of reflecting on what I said, you yet again double down and try to infer ulterior meaning. in fact the evidence does not even support your position that ALL CEO’s get paid exorbitant amounts…so maybe your not arguing on what actually happens but on what you have decided happens.


            2) Sure some CEO’s provide limited value and are over paid… but that does not mean they all are.

            The averages and trends are quite clear (and reflective of what’s happening across all income bands generally).

            Except they are not… the tops of the executive band is going up ridiculous amounts and its dragging the averages up but if you actually took the time to research the data like I did ( and provided to you above ) you would see that 90% get less than $299K with the bottom 10% less than $96k


            When was that? I dont believe they have been only single digit multiples in over a century

            Those are US numbers (which I didn’t want to use). The problem is not as extreme here, though the trends are similar and will continue to get worse as we become more and more like America.

            But by all means we can use the US as an example if you want, it only makes my point clearer.

            Had to provide US numbers on it as there are no accurate Australian records on this prior to 1990….. Was not something anyone thought needed recording here…. Interestingly based on the data I found and provided above not only have these executive remuneration packages been in the single digit multiples as you said, if you exclude the few crazy amounts that get bandied around in media the absolute majority are still in the single digit territory, and the bottom end of that territory….


            Saying I think CEO’s should be paid orders of magnitude more than any other employee as a general rule is just misrepresenting what I have said.

            No it’s not. You are saying organisations should choose to pay what they think provides value. That’s what they’ve been doing and the outcome is what we see today with outrageous executive packages and little accountability. So you are, in fact, agreeing that CEOs should be receiving the dramatically higher remuneration – on average – they receive today compared to in the past.

            yes, it is. No only did I never say a CEO should get orders of magnitude more than the people employed under them, I never even defended an amount. But yes, they should get paid more than the staff under them….Should it be dramatically higher…I suppose that actually depends on what you define as dramatically. I dont think 2 or 3 times the average staff member is dramatic, even 5 times may not be, depending on the organisations structure.

            You keep claiming they as a general rule of thumb get orders of magnitude more and attacking my opinion based on this. In fact as you can see from the data I researched and provided above the evidence is clear that the majority of them would be lucky to get paid more than the other employees and its rare for them to get more than around twice the employees.


            It’s not consistent to say you support each individual organisation making a decision, then have a problem with the aggregate outcome of those decisions.

            You only see it as inconsistent because your convinced the problems you see are caused by high executive remuneration, which I dont.

            Not only is it not the case that the majority of CEO’s get extremely high remuneration, I dont believe it is even the cause of the issues you have a problem with. So based on that I don’t see any inconsistency with my position.

            As I said earlier, your tilting at windmills, Your so angry about an injustice you believe is happening right in front of you, that have latched on to the first thing you can think of as the cause. The evidence does not back that position up and if you start to pull back the layers of the problem you will start to see where it really comes from.

            As usual it has been an enlightening discussion and I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

      • Can’t believe I am going to say this but I agree with Dr Smithy own this.
        CEO’s just set general direction / goals of the company and direct the immediate managers below them to action it and this propagates down the chain.They don’t personally deliver anything and most wouldn’t have a clue on how to do any of the technical tasks of those below them or much of how the place really works.
        I’ve always wondered what the outcome would be if you swapped say a technical person (e.g. Engineer) with a CEO.
        Who would struggle the most to do the others job? What would their thoughts be about their new remuneration be?

        • If you think all CEO’s do is set basic direction and sit around then there may be a reason your not a CEO.

          While my original response to totesbewoke mentioned a CEO vs a factory floor labourer, My question regarding amounts someone should be paid based on what they generate in value did not mention which position generated the revenue. IT was this question to which DrSmithy was responding, it was DrSmithy’s response that stated the CEO generating this amount….

          You should not be upset just because you agree with DrSmithy on anything, except maybe this one. There are many things DrSmithy and I agree on, this is just one thing that we dont.

          • Now you are trying to twist my words. I never said nor tried to imply that CEOs sit around doing nothing. They ‘work hard’ just like most employees. I believe a lot are well and truely overpaid for the ‘value’ that they bring to the table.

            I stand by my claim that their basic job role is to set the company’s direction – including managing the overall operations and resources of the company. But they aren’t magical beings that have some super human ability to do the work of 15+ workers.
            They rely on the subordinates below to carry out their will, nothing more.

            Also, how do you know I am not a CEO or have never been one?

          • Yeah ok you could probably say that but you did say ….

            CEO’s just set general direction / goals of the company and direct the immediate managers below them to action it and this propagates down the chain.They don’t personally deliver anything and most wouldn’t have a clue on how to do any of the technical tasks of those below them or much of how the place really works.

            and statements like they “just” set direction….”They dont personally deliver anything” and “most wouldnt have a clue on how” …. all dont leave a lot of room for doing much more than “set basic direction and sit around “. Besides, I never said you think that, I said “IF” you think that….

            I stand by my claim that their basic job role is to set the company’s direction – including managing the overall operations and resources of the company. But they aren’t magical beings that have some super human ability to do the work of 15+ workers.
            They rely on the subordinates below to carry out their will, nothing more.

            the majority of these high paid CEO’s bring a cadre of staff with them, They also do a lot of relationship. networking and business development. Yes, they rely on the subordinates to execute on the direction the CEO sets but they do a lot more than just set direction.

            Its no wonder people think they are over paid when they seem to think they “just set direction”. Sure, I am happy to accept the majority are probably not worth the kind of money they are paid but its completely wrong to assume that purely based on the size of the remuneration package. Besides, its up to the board and shareholders to determine if they think the CEO is worth it.

            Also, how do you know I am not a CEO or have never been one?

            I dont know for sure but I would be extremely surprised if you were considering your opinion on what they do.

      • I think people should be paid relative to the overall value proposition they represent.

        You would not support this should you find yourself in different circumstances.

        example. kanniget is shipwrecked on an island fully owned and run by The Claw. The Claw welcomes new people to his island and pays them the overall value proposition they represent.

        The Claw: Welcome kanniget. What is your value proposition?

        kanniget: I am a talented farmer I could tend your crops on your land.

        The Claw: No. I have already selected my farmers for my land. What else can you do?

        kanniget: I am a talented musician on many instruments.

        The Claw: We have no instruments on my island. Besides, I hate music.

        The Claw: The only place where I would value another worker is in my brothel. Get your kit off and I’ll determine your overall value proposition right now.

        • Yeah… You convinced me…. We should all just get paid the same amount no matter what we do just in case we find ourselves stranded on a desert island short on brothel workers…

          • You missed the point. If elites have monopolised ownership of all the natural resources, then plebs find themselves being paid whatever a pleb is worth to a land-owning elite.

    • Sally acts as if all the underpaid foreign workers on temp visas are paid up union members, when she asked for them to get Centrelink benefits.

      You’re right, there is a massive disconnect between the member base and leaders.

      • Sally McManus may have said something different elsewhere, but she seemed to be talking in the video clip here about people on visas who were unable (not unwilling) to go home.

        • Sally should have suggested that the government provide assistance in getting them out of the country. This would have provided work for the airlines, and their union staff; and also freed up work opportunities for locals.

          • I agree with you, provided that the home country is not limiting the number of people who can return, as Australia has been doing.

  5. Jumping jack flash

    They need to look at the reasons for wage theft and that is quite simply the insatiable need for huge and ever-growing piles of debt to afford the expected lifestyle… while the debt isnt growing fast enough to make it into wage inflation proper.

    The economy limped along on nothing much more than wage theft to grow wages which is not a good solution to the debt growth problem. The proof of that is that ever so subtle deflation that claimed so many once robust businesses over the past 10 years.

    Fix the problem with debt growth and we wont need wage theft

  6. blindjusticeMEMBER

    meh, any increase in wages resulting from super changes will be funneled toward housing because that is how our economy is structured now so im neither in favour nor against a change.
    As for job security, the mass migration spruikers appear like they`ll win eventually. A plane load of international students landed in Darwin yesterday – that should tell you all you need to know.

  7. The working class pay so Sally can pirouette before likeminded adherents of elite opinion. In inner city pubs, ABC studios and Guardian columns she gains praise and future preselection but it is achieved by cruelly stomping down on those she serves.

  8. That woman is too blinded by her own virtue to ever contemplate looking after her union members. Opposing mass immigration would be racist so she will never do it. This country is so fcked up, with useful idiots like her being manipulated by the Great Princes via social justice nonsense.

    She’s a puppet dancing to the tune of the big end of town and doesn’t even know it.

  9. Once seemingly the new age vanguard of the labour movement, Sally McManus is a woke piñata. Problem is, it’s hard to advance working class values when you despise the values of the working class itself. In the ALP/ACTU Punch and Judy show identity politics ate the last slice of authentic labour pie. A new pie recipe threw in all the ingredients of the ACTU’s demise with support for; mass immigration; 457 visas; globalised labour markets and the bonfire of community amenity etc. As workers voted with their feet and left unions, Sally and her ilk would never consider that they were responsible. To them it was the basket of deplorables that let them down by remaining unwashed, un-reconstructed and un-reborn in the image of a new ideology that is truly asbestos for the core principles of the labour movement.

    The swooning of the ABC’s axe-grinding feminist journalist battalion makes it impossible to examine Sally McManus’ legacy. One cannot mock a symbol of an ideology that is held aloft by those singing the Siren song of victimhood. How can Sally McManus be anything other than an outstanding success?

    • TailorTrashMEMBER

      “That’s what being in the working class is all about — how to get out of it”.
      Neville Wran

    • I want to get a subscription to Clive’s comments. Always great.

      I too disagree with this sentiment:
      “Second, it has taken years to beat sense into McManus on immigration as well. And she is still only halfway there. ”

      I don’t think she is anywhere on immigration reform. And that is what hits the workers. The 5 gig economy workers that died were temporary visa holders, as was the liar who deceived the South Australia contract tracers because they didn’t want to admit to the 2nd job. Fix visas … then some transition but then Aussies are getting more jobs. You know we used to get pizza delivered in the 1980s without smart phones or international students??

  10. The bill is also expected to bolster secure work by giving casuals a right to convert to permanent positions after an extended period of employment.

    I thought a casual employed for 12months could request this?

    Be interesting to see how they prevent an employer simply sacking a casual if they request a conversion.

    As for super, I am going to be delighted to see my take home pay increase by 0,5% when the legislated SGC is dropped. Because that’s what “everyone” is arguing right? SCG lifts are at the expense of workers’ take home pay. So the corrollory of that is, if the SGC rise is dropped, everyone’s take home pay should increase by the equivalent amount. Right? RIGHT?

    • Wrong. You’ll get your nominal salary increase but if super increase had gone through that would have been lower.

      At my company we have a mix of folks on an award and on contracts. The award gets amended each year based on FWC – and they would take super increases into account.

      For those on contract it is always a mix. This year pretty much no rises. Sometimes CPI, sometimes more. It’s all supply and demand and rewarding good staff you wish to keep and shafting those you are indifferent to.

  11. Sally and the ACTU represent Trade Unions. That means more mass immigration and more highrise apartments to keep tradies happy. May as well have Harry Triguboff pretending to care about workers.