It seems that both sides have blinked in this little exercise of industrial muscle and the journos have gone back to work having accepted the revised offer from management.
While journalists remain angry over company plans to shed 550 jobs, including 165 editorial positions, their union will recommend they accept the company’s revised pay offer made yesterday.
Fairfax made a concession in the reopened talks, retreating from its position that 350 journalists earning more than $100,000 a year would be excluded from the union collective agreement.
Under the new offer, journalists will receive pay rises of 11 to 12.25 per cent over almost three years. Those on more than $115,000 a year will be exempt from the union pay deal, and subject to individual negotiations with management. However, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance yesterday accepted the offer after Fairfax agreed to index the $115,000 threshold so it would climb to $128,500 in three years. MEAA officials estimate only 25 people will miss out on union pay rises after redundancies.
The concessions came yesterday after Fairfax threatened on Saturday to escalate the dispute by locking out the journalists and pursuing them and their union for damages, unless they returned to work and accepted the company’s initial pay offer, with the union cut-off fixed at pay of $108,000.
I can’t help thinking that the journos in this dispute are rather rich whiners, who are paid very well. If you add up all of their wages it becomes a very big expense for the paper when their profits are plunging.
Already we see a large amount of the content shared between all of the Fairfax entities and the only content that is unique to each is some of the sport and what could be termed local stuff so I wonder how long it will be before Fairfax go one step further and change to a more national focus the way that The Oz does. i suspect that it is only the Sydney Melbourne rivalry that prevents it.
Oh and finally does anyone else find it amusing that the Fairfax journos are such creatures of the left while their wages are so high?
Cheers Comrades
😉
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
“Oh and finally does anyone else find it amusing that the Fairfax journos are such creatures of the left while their wages are so high?”
No I don’t Iain. ‘Teh Left’ being in this case the MEAA. The Union has delivered a very good outcome for the hard working staff at Fairfax.
I expect the rightist journos to refuse the pay rise though, as ‘teh left’ were responsible, wouldn’t you?
Just what i would expect from You Craigy but your comment could be read as suggesting that as creatures of the left the journos should not be so well paid 🙂
🙄
How do you get that Iain??
Unions are the best way for people to get a fair wage out come.
We all saw the crap the right can put up under Howards workchoices, now supported in part by the rightist ALP.
Come on Craigy,
these jounos are hardly battlers.
Presumably you think wages should be determined by union muscle. That mentality caused the infamous stagflation in the 1970’s.
At the end of the day, wages should be based on productivity and the market, with a minimum floor to protect the worst off.
“At the end of the day, wages should be based on productivity and the market “
I agree that wages should be set by productivity but set by the market usually just means what the boss can get away with.
So if a company makes a 50% increase in profit, then all wages should go up accordingly, you would support this Leon??
If a firm’s profits go up 50%, the extent of any pay increase would still depend on other factors, including:
– profit forecasts into the future
– productivity gains
– competition for labour in the particular industry.
But wages should not go up 50%, if that is what you are suggesting. If a company operates on a 2% profit margin and wages are more than half of the company’s costs, then the firm would easily slide into severe loss if a 50% pay rise is given.
So how do you think wages should reflect increased productivity then Leon? How should wage increases and decreases be tied to productivity? It’s your idea, tell us how you would do it.
And you think it is fine to use a surplus of labour to drive down wages by competition.
What if we have lots of labour and massive profits from productivity gains, how would you set wages then?
The truth is company directors are always looking at every way possible to drive down wages and conditions, to make more profit for shareholders, it’s their job after all.
Without strong unions to argue in favour of workers, and yes using muscle equal to that of employers at times, everyday people get steamrolled. The proof of this is the support big business gave to Howard’s ‘Workchoices’ grab. In one of the most profitable times for Australian business they seek to drive down wages and conditions.
“So how do you think wages should reflect increased productivity then Leon? How should wage increases and decreases be tied to productivity?”
There are many ways this is already done:
– enterprise bargaining agreements having wage rises conditional upon productivity increases.
– bodies setting minimum wages taking into account productivity gains
– individual agreements being offered on the basis of an employees productivity.
– trade unions sometimes justifying wage increases by reference to productivity gains in negotiations.
Once again, I detect in your rant an underlying belief in class warfare, where the rich directors, shareholders and the bodies representing them are in cahoots conspiring against the poor defenceless worker that stands no chance against them without strong unions and tough workplace laws.
No offence, but this is a very outdated view. The modern reality simply does not support it. Here are a few facts which severely undermine your assumptions:
1) Less than 25% of Australian employees are on awards or the minimum wage.
2) Less than 15% of private sector employees are members of a union.
3) Between 1996 and 2005, wages on average increased in real terms by 14%. Meanwhile, the minimum wage only increased by 10%.
So as you can see, its been the market, and not unions or industrial tribunals, that have been responsible for the vast majority of wage increases.
Note that I do not deny that some employees need protections through regulation and /or unions. That’s why I support the role of unions where workers are willing to join them and I support regulation in order to protect those who may need it.
“Once again, I detect in your rant an underlying belief in class warfare”
Putting words in my mouth Leon, I never mention class warfare, just that the current system tells directors and their executives to have shareholder value and company profit as the most important outcome, regardless of the effect on workers.
Workers interests are at best a side issue and at worst a problem for those running companies in Australia.
I would like to see us develop a process by which all stakeholders in a business have their issues considered as part of the obligations of those running them. Not to mention greater responsibility to communities and the environment.
“So as you can see, its been the market, and not unions or industrial tribunals, that have been responsible for the vast majority of wage increases.”
Where can I see this Leon? Not from anything in your post other than your say so.
“Note that I do not deny that some employees need protections through regulation and /or unions. That’s why I support the role of unions where workers are willing to join them and I support regulation in order to protect those who may need it.”
Good to see you’re growing up with this comment Leon!
Craigy,
the three facts I outlined above demonstrated that ” the market, and not unions or industrial tribunals, have been responsible for the vast majority of wage increases.”
To repeat, those facts were:
1) Less than 25% of Australian employees are on awards or the minimum wage.
2) Less than 15% of private sector employees are members of a union.
3) Between 1996 and 2005, wages on average increased in real terms by 14%. Meanwhile, the minimum wage only increased by 10%.
The reality of most enterprises in most industries at the moment is that they are desperate to attract and retain good workers. This is because unemployment is so low, whilst demand for labour so high.
A rational employer in such circumstances will not be trying lower wages, but to increase them, as well as offer bonuses, good conditions and a good environment.
To repeat, its not out of the kindness of their hearts, they are indeed promoting “shareholder value and company profit as the most important outcome, regardless of the effect on workers.”. But if workers gain from this, then that’s a good thing.
Fact 1. Doesn’t prove the market provides a better wage out come for workers.
Fact 2, Ditto
Fact 3, Ditto.
As I said just saying it is so doesn’t make it true.
“A rational employer in such circumstances will not be trying lower wages, but to increase them”
Why then did I just pass a union demonstration outside a 7 eleven store that, like all their stores in Melbourne, has been paying their workers (as casuals when they are not) $9.10 per hour.
I spoke to the organiser who said they have been picketing the stores one by one and 7 eleven have been agreeing (one by one) to pay their staff the minimum wage of about $16.50 per hour and to give them permanent status.
Would never have happened if the union workers had not given up their time to support the mainly migrant workers in these stores.
Craigy,
you are forgetting that I said this:
“Note that I do not deny that some employees need protections through regulation and /or unions. That’s why I support the role of unions where workers are willing to join them and I support regulation in order to protect those who may need it.”
Therefore, pointing out one case where a union helped workers hardly proves me wrong. In fact, it proves me right.
Now, of my facts you say that “Doesn’t prove the market provides a better wage out come for workers”.
To put it another way, my question for you is this then, since most workers neither belong to unions or are not on awards, how do you explain the huge wage increases over the last 12 years? Even under Workchoices, average wages just kept growing and growing – in real terms. How can you explain this without attributing this to the market?
The answer is that you cannot. Those three facts combined show that the market does deliver better wage outcomes for most workers.