It has recently been announced that the Brisbane Arrnots factory is to shed up to 400 jobs in favour of more automated equipment.

After all, I guess one can't blame them as some of the workers there get paid in excess of $25 per hour simply to work on a semi automated processing line. Their primary role in many cases is simply to discard faulty product.

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of something that has been threatening to come about for some time.

And of cause, as usual, the government will reward the foriegn owned jiant for sacking these workers and buying new 'imported' equipment.

It's sad to think it has come to this, but the warning signs have been out there for all to see, yet wage increases still go ahead even though profits are falling.

It's a simple matter of doing the math.

400 x $20 per week adds $416,000 per year to the bottom line.

The figures I read were not 400 jobs lost rehctub, but 140 full time jobs and 50 casual jobs.

$25 per hour. Greedy swine. How dare they hope to keep up with the cost of living on that inflated income.

Sheesh..rehctub one day you might actually write a piece about the greed and excesses of senior management in some of these companies and wonder at how savings might be made by reducing CEO salaries (usually in the millions) and getting rid of so called KPI bonuses which are paid even when losses are made. The financial boys network is where the real greed lies, sooner people like you see that the better off all of us will be.

The problem is not paying workers a 'living wage' but the impact of globalisation and free trade where poorer economies are being used as the benchmark for standard of living and greed has overridden social conscience. How much profit is enough?

*How much profit is enough?*

What if the business is running at a loss?

What if the business is running at a loss?

Has anyone seen the film. "Inside Job?" It's about what happened with the global financial crisis. The CEOs of the multinational corporations, the bankers, none of them took any cuts - they were making money hand over fist while their companies went down. And none of these people have ever been brought to account for their actions. None have had criminal charges levied against them - for the damage they did. I recommend you see the film. It's an eye-opener and it should be now available on DVD.

As for man versus machine? There will always be jobs for people - machines need to be operated by someone as well as maintained - until they can think for themselves I don't believe there will be a problem.
At least - not yet.

If the business is running at a loss why look only to the income of the lowest paid?

What does the senior end get paid per year. I am all for paying more money for increased responsibility and hours worked but how much should the highest paid worker earn compared to the lowest paid. What is a reasonable difference and why must the poor always prop up the richest in our society.

The elephant in the room is government support of unfettered free trade and globalisation.

At least to Arnotts' credit, they are attempting to keep the factory in Australia - so far.

*None have had criminal charges levied against them - for the damage they did. *

Ah Lexi, but CEOs are in fact workers at the top of the food chain.
The losses were born by the owners, ie the shareholders.

The SEC is trying very hard to charge Goldman Sachs and some of its
employees, but the problem is that you cannot charge people with
stupidity. They have to actually break a law to be charged. Proving
that is not always simple.

A CEO can very easily bankrupt a company as we saw with Lehmans.
Luckily in this case he also had skin in the game as a shareholder
and lost 400 million. Good. But CEOs as just workers can walk away
scott free, if stupidity was the problem.