[sgift]

While I'm not sure that this is a great example for it there's always the matter of deciding if any job is really better than no job - sure, you could stay competitive with other places/countries by matching ever worse conditions, but is that really a good idea? Is a job which doesn't pay someone a living wage really a job that should exist?

[scriptman]

I think you've moved the goal posts a long way there.

A living wage as defined by the Harvester judgement, which seems to be what you are referencing, was based on begin paid enough money to be able to afford food, shelter and clothing for a family.

In the case I'm referencing the dispute is over whether the workers should have their standard break for Christmas reduced from 21 days to 10 days. I can't think of any other companies within Australia that offer such a generous Christmas break, but maybe there are some; i think it would be a very small number. What they were being asked to give up seemed very generous and the replacement of 10 days instead doesn't seem onerous - it still seems generous compared to many companies.

You'd have to ask the workers that lost their jobs if they are now better off having lost their jobs rather than stay competitive with other places by bringing their conditions in line with what is typical even within the country they live in.

[johnvonneumann]

I don't believe he moved the goalposts at all, he made a valid point. The argument that you have made about staying "competitive" IMO is a classic example of bandwagon fallacy. Just because other countries allow companies to treat their workers like shit does not make it ok for our country to start doing it.

I also disagree with the way you phrased your point, on one hand, you mention that the unions would not budge on conditions, but then state that they should have because "no other company that you know of" allows 21 days of holiday over the Christmas. First of all drawing to the fact that the Union represents workers, not companies, it makes sense why the companies have an interest in shortening the holiday break of the workers. It is not in the interest of workers however. To counter your point that their breaks should have been cut in line with that of other countries, then we should keep in mind that some Northern European countries are going further in terms of workers rights, in the opposite direction, so all of us a sudden, your advice that we should follow the lead of some countries leads us to question which way we go.

I would also like to highlight that the CFMEU (Construction) enforces a 17 day shutdown over the Christmas break, so there are other's who do lengthy breaks.

I also struggle to understand your last point about bringing conditions in line within the country they live in, Australia has Union representation across most industries. If you wish to do business in Australia, then you surely understand this, I would hazard a guess that given this, then good conditions and decent pay is the typical situation. Why would anyone want to degrade that?

Winning a race to the bottom is a zero sum game.

[scriptman]

But we're not talking about treating workers badly by any reasonable definition. These are workers that were paid more than the average Australian worker, they got far more Christmas holiday leave than the Australian worker. They weren't living on the minimum wage.

They weren't forced to take a reduction in Christmas leave. They company asked if they could, considering the local and international conditions in their industry. The workers weren't forced, it was their decision and they said no, presumably knowing that the consequence might be that this may be the straw that shuts the factory down permanently.

If the company had made a draconian decision that cut workers pay unreasonably, regardless of the current economic circumstances and pocketed this money, I'd agree strongly with you. But, this isn't what happened. The workers kept all of their conditions and the factory shut down.

There have to be some circumstances where you would see that it would be reasonable for workers to give up some conditions in the industry they are working in if it is under some economic pressure, either internally or externally? They may only agree to give them up temporarily until conditions improve, or make some other offer to help the company to increase output or reduce costs.

The reality is that Australia is an open, market economy. Its companies have to be competitive with the rest of the world in order for those companies to survive.

You say that companies only have an interest in shortening holiday breaks. But if this is the case, how did the holiday break end up as 21 days in the first place? Companies have to compete for workers too - there must have been a time when it was beneficial to the company to attract and retain workers with a longer Christmas break. You point out that some European countries have more workers rights, but this misses the point that the competitive pressure at the time wasn't for workers - it was on total cost of production.

Nobody wants to degrade good conditions and decent pay for workers. However, for many people that work in small business and haven't had a pay rise in several years can only look on with bemusement when highly unionized industries demand 4% pay rises plus extra Christmas holidays and then demand tax payer money when their industries falls over.

It seems like every time a unionized industry is asked to make a small concession that it's seen as a zero sum game, the thin end of the wedge, a race to the bottom and the apocalypse. It's blown completely out of proportion. Most industries go through ups and downs. The inflexible ones go broke.

[thaumasiotes]

> Is a job which doesn't pay someone a living wage really a job that should exist?

Should people who have other means of support be allowed to hold jobs?