Workers don't make profits. They get paid for their labour - they are not a charity for business to utilise as required.

Certainly there are many jobs that are overpaid and the oncosts make it difficult for employers and ultimately consumers. But the overpaid jobs are not represented in the lower income streams. It is the middle-high end wages pushing up the low end wages so that those on minimum (or near to) wages can afford to survive and participate in the economy.

The real problem is at the top end not the bottom despite the furphies being pushed by business unions.

*Yabby, don't tell me you fell for that 3% crap. Most of their prices are down by 10 to 20%, yet, they don't run at a loss. That's a myth!*

Let me put it to you this way, Rehctub. The figures of public
companies like Woolies and Coles are public information, they
being public companies. Analysts rip them to bits and examine
the claims made. Auditors audit the books. CEOs are regularly
grilled on these figures.

The claim by Coles to work on 3% of overall turnover, is over all
products sold, not just meat. There are many things which influence
that figure, from the cost of rent to logistics and more efficient
running of the business. Coles turnover is indeed increasing,
as customers return and the business is turned around. The new
management team are starting to make a big difference, consumers
benefit.

The 3% figure is commonly mentioned by management. Are you claiming
that management are defrauding the public and shareholders? Have
you ever bothered to read their annual report

The example you cite regarding the licence Rehctub, seems like a perfectly reasonable reason for needing to replace that employee. Would that dismissal be deemed unfair?.

If the existing employee was given opportunity to get a licence, then this might be a perfectly good reason for that employee to feel loyalty towards their employer.

Industrial relations laws have for the most part tried to find a balance. Workchoices tipped the balance, and had it remained intact it would have resulted in bottom feeders being the most successful in business, not leaders. Trouble is, it is still mostly intact, (at least in our mindset), the previous era of co-operation all but forgotten.

The idea that a dismissal in some cases, can be unfair is perfectly reasonable. Sadly this type of legislation is needed
to deter the very same bottom feeders from succeeding in business.

I agree with your scepticism about declared corporate margins Rehctub. It's the unnecessary and ever increasing size of their of their annual profits that disturb me.

The collusion aspect of my post have remained largely ignored but I still contend that there is at least, what you would think was indicators of such, in petrol pricing alone.

The consumers are feeling the brunt of this

Yabby, I am not disputing whether or not they make just 3%. What I am suggesting is that given the fact that this was their figure, pre-the past years or so of discounting wars', how on earth can their profits remain at 3%, given the huge discounts they have offered in the past year or so.

My suggestion would be that they have made huge cuts to costs. Staff, outgoings and suppliers. So, who has worn the brunt of their discounting?

pelican, I was simply using this as an example. However, when one refers to 'excessive profits', these comments must be substantiated as profits are simply a return on investment and this is why I used the staff example, as staff often complain about profits, yet invest next to nothing to make their profits, which, by the way, are a return on their investment, time and skills.

T2. This actually happend to me. I was advised by my federation that it would be illegal for me to terminate this empoloyee simply because my business needs had changed.

Simply another example of the crap we employers have to deal with.

Of cause, if he did not like the changes, he could simply leave. Go figure!

*My suggestion would be that they have made huge cuts to costs. Staff, outgoings and suppliers. So, who has worn the brunt of their discounting?*

Rehctub, in an organisation of that size, there tends to be huge
waste. Great management is largely about identifying that waste
and introducing more efficient, less wasteful systems. What you
pay your staff is less critical. What they actually do all day, how
they do it etc, is far more critical. Pass those savings on to your
customers and you will invariably land up with even more satisfied
customers and increasing turnover.

*Workchoices tipped the balance, and had it remained intact it would have resulted in bottom feeders being the most successful in business, not leaders.*

Nonsense, Thinker 2. It is not the lowest paid staff that make
a business money, but the most talented. Staff can damage machinery.
Staff can scare away customers. Smart employers understand this
difference and reward their best staff, for they are often the
most valuable asset a business can have. It pays to look after them.

If you don't understand those kind of facts, perhaps its one of the reasons
why you are not running your own business anymore. There is more
to running a great business, then many an employee will ever
understand, that is why so many fail

I have read and absorbed yours posts Yabby, Rehctub and pelican and appreciated them,
Peter Hume didn't respond to my proposition regarding excessive margins. I was hoping he would.

I have to admit Rehctub, that your employment example does show the excessive nature of he extremes, but it would still have been silly of your employee to refuse to get a licence, if given the opportunity to do so.? Wouldn't it.?

However the subject matter of my post was really about the battered consumer experience
that masquerades as service and delivery of such in Australia today. Service is about trust.
This was something that was intrinsically Australian regarding transactions in our once more regulated economy.

The fair go , should be re-instituted in order that the standard of living for most people doesn't continues to decline in real terms. And that the ability to participate in the economy at the bottom end (as pelican said) doesn't disappear altogether.

Power to distort democracy increases when fewer people have actual power. Real power and economic power are the same thing in the real world.

I simply do not understand why it isn't appropriate to have a set of basic understandings
for participation when it comes to the master/servant relationships in peoples lives.

The market alone, should not and cannot be the only driver in a civilised society.