Thread: Would you Aussies put up with this?

Army shifts $2m contract to China - New Zealand's source for business, stock market & currency news on Stuff.co.nz
With reference to the original thread: i am not suprised, thank god that the kiwi Army don't get involved in much action, because when i played with the british army as a signaller weekend warrior the kit was great 3/4 length lined D.P.M'S or combat kecks (1988) then when the kit got farmed out to china, far out the combat trousers were so thin and basically ****e, on exercise involving moisture the kit would split at the knee and your arse would be hanging out by the end of 2 days.
Some pencil pusher in Whitehall saw a potential saving, without testing the kit (formerly made in Britain to high spec) and made a non plus choice to get the worst performing kit the British army has ever had to suffer, a basic false economy, the end result the blokes were buying up old surplus kit to clothe themselves....we won't even cover the dms standard issue boots that melted in the first gulf war or the first SA80 556mm rifle that didn't like sand.
Makes you proud that the blokes who risk life and limb for a government that doesn't care suffer so appallingly

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

Apparently there are still going to be 30,000 workers in oz employed by Pac brands so if they save those jobs and "only" lose 1850 have they done a good job?

And whats wrong with that. Makes good business sense to me

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

By the way execs job is not to save jobs it is to make profits or keep losses to a minimum, if they dont do that thay are braking Aust corporate law and can be held accountable. Unfortunatly workers are not protected by corporate law but profits are.

What a load of crap.

Originally Posted by Reads90

And whats wrong with that. Makes good business sense to me

Good business sense is when a business is running at full potential making profit because it is running properly. Not when you put workers off to prop up your wage by 150%+ and the company the company records a profit loss. Is that good business sense? Geez woolworths are in big trouble than as Mr luscombe seems to have the business strategy all worked out. And pacific brand dont.

Originally Posted by jbarracl

I dont understand why you need a bonus to do your job to the best of your ability.

Do you accept a job offer then go ok, I'll take it but if you want me to actually try then you have to pay me more money.

That is ridiculous.

Whenever you give these sort of incentives to management then the first place they will look to boost their bank balance is to screw the workers.

Management expect a fair days work for a fair days pay from their workers so why arent they prepared to reciprocate.

The only reason I think it makes sense.. is to keep the income in line with the performance of their company...

To get the right people running some of these big corporations - you do need to pay dollars far bigger than most of us earn.

I am not saying pay extra just so that you try..

I am saying the only way to earn the big bucks should be do the job well.

At the moment there are people earning huge money, while their decisions cause the company - and it's share holders to loose thousands...

That is the part that is so very wrong..

It's no different form a large percentage of sales jobs in this country... the better you do the job... the better your pay packet...

Blue Thunder it may be a load off cr*p but execs must make decisions in the "best interests of the share holders" not the workers. They can be held acountable for losing money but not cutting jobs thats our law. If we dont like it get the pollies to change it

I think people forget two simple points with these arguments;

Point 1.

The benefits of trade liberalisation (i.e. globalisation, free trade) far outweigh the negatives. This is because as nations develop according to their competitive advantage (the good they produce has the lowest opportunity cost), more goods and services are available for consumption. This benefits all, but is a largely unnoticeable benefit taken for granted by all. The negatives, felt by a very small minority, are of course job losses. When a company lays off a few hundred workers, etc. the poo hits the fan - but what about the overall general consumption by the entire nation of goods far cheaper that are manufactured elsewhere? In nations like Australia we also have an enormous social welfare segment that facilitates the transition between jobs.

Imagine the cost of an individual Australian firm building a Land Rover-like vehicle from scratch, without government assistance. It isn't possible in this nation, which is why we all purchase these British vehicles. Australia's auto industry has been artificially kept alive by enormous government support - go to the Productivity Commission website to read about it first hand. (Although the PC has been significantly sidelined in this debate by Senator Carr, who would rather head up the tariff commission with a former Labor Premier, whose 'yeah I reckon this is kind of the way' approach is clearly more appropriate than reasoned economic inquiry).

Why stop at automobiles and textiles? How about we legislate to import and export nothing and see where that takes us?

In answer to the question put forward by the thread originator, yes Aussies would put up with it because although many people don't understand the benefits accrued from globalisation, they still receive them.

It is an extraordinarily - and deceptively - simple argument.

Point 2.

The Australian TCF (Textiles, Clothing & Footwear) industry is still sheltered somewhat from foreign competition by tariffs (from recollection at 5%). This is an industry that enforces a higher price for international competitors, and is still failing domestically.

This is a very important point to understand.

People arguing for the continuance of an ineffective, unproductive and ultimately uncompetitive manufacturing industry forget that although it was in the past the major driver of growth in Australia (and all advanced nations), the shift to a services-based economy has reaped enormous advantages for all.

Not to mention that before manufacturing was the focal point of national employment, agriculture was previously.

Why don't we legislate to keep 70% of our population farming the land?

In fact, how about we go back in time and say no thanks to the Industrial Revolution? I know that (personally), as long as it saved an inefficient job or two I would love to walk miles everyday...

Because it is not efficient, nor is it productive.

Pacific Brands removed 1800 workers that should not have been employed there to start with. Government support for these industries merely promotes the foolish belief in the general public that we need these sorts of jobs desperately - that this represents a great travesty, perhaps worthy of a musical aid concert, or a Federal Government Committee.

I sincerely appreciate the issues involved - and wish the layed off workers all the best. The transition to new careers, etc. will no doubt be extraordinarily difficult, however they have not been aided by a society which undoubtedly had the best intentions. Social support systems are in place to deal with these issues.

At the end of my rant - lol - but I need to say one more thing.

Instead of people, many of whom will be reading this, talking to their children and saying 'the government should be doing xyz but isn't, that's the cause of all these problems', or screaming about executive pay, etc, thus promoting a genuine class contempt, why not tell them to sit down, do their bloody homework, and then they can have the opportunity to earn millions of dollars per year.

My girlfriend today finished her internship overseas at an investment bank - you would be hard pressed to find a 20 year old work harder both to get to this point and succeed once given this opportunity.

Such total criticism among the public of the successful is saddening in the extreme.

Personal disclaimer; I have no money, in fact my income this year was just under $20,000. I live in a tiny studio apartment (albeit in Mosman), which I pay for with my own income. My family sacrificed a great deal to send me to private school (boarding) and due to financial hardship cannot support me, and have not for the last 3 years as I study economics. I hold crap jobs, but don't resign myself to a particular fate because in this nation you can achieve whatever it is you want to. I work like mad, in the knowledge that one day somebody will criticise me for having more money than they do.

I don't work hard to have a flash car or cool apartment, I do so because in the near future I want to have children and ensure they have the best possible lives - and most opportunities - that they can.

As always - I never intend to offend anybody, these are merely my personal views. However broad public sentiment such as that resulting from this issue merely serves to engander the livelihoods of those I care about - not just for my family, but for all.

Originally Posted by XSiV

That's a very good list you have there. I think we (the public) should have a general "Black Ban" on all their products. Teach those bloody high earning fatcats were their profits are actually coming from. When they decide to tak a wage cut and re-instate the little guys then we might consider buying their products again.

So you're saying we shouldn't give any of our money to an Australian Company that has manufacturing in China, we should avoid them and spend our money with an American Company that manufactures in China, or a Japanese Company that manufactures in China, or a Dutch Company.......

Pac Brands aka Bonds are one of the last large Textiles/Clothing/Footwear manufacturers left operating in Australia. They have bucked the trend of other companies going overseas, and have done so for quite a time. It's remarkable that they have held out for so long.

An enormous amount of Media Spin is being applied to this topic to paint this decision by the PacBrands Board as some sort of act of Capitalist Bastardry.

Workers are being portrayed as being shortchanged and having their jobs axed without any notice, but the reality is that they are NOW being told that their jobs will go sometime in the next 12 to 18 months. They will get ALL of their leave and long service entitlements, and if they haven't found a job by that time WILL ALSO receive redundancy. There have been lots of companies who have traded their way into bankruptcy and denied their workers these entitlements. Why punish PacBrands for giving up to 18 months notice that it will pay workers their entitlements? Choosing to blackban this company will only hurt the remaining 7000 Australians who will still have a job with Bonds.

Remember too that this company has not only reported a $150mil loss, but it's share price fell by 37% on the day of the announcement. 37% in one day. Do any of you have Superannuation? Is it invested in Australian Companies, do you think? I wonder how much damage this attack on Pac Brands has done to your Super Balance? Can you afford to lose a bit more?

This has been a great story for the Media, but jumping on the bandwagon and putting the boot into the the largest remaining TCF business in Aust will do nothing more than screw with the Aust economy. We should be getting behind every Aust company that's still afloat, not trying to shut them down with hysterical beat-ups.