Pacific Brands - where Law does not equal Justice - and where is the ACCC?

[jb03]

Talking of upper echelon decadence - a friend in middle management went after a pay rise once. Time and time again the South East Asia Area Manager said the company (member of huge US 5 star hotel chain) couldn’t afford any pay rises. He ended up resigning but as he was such an important team member the AM deemed it fit for the company to afford him a farewell dinner. My friend noted that the cost of just one of the bottles of wine consumed during dinner cost more than the weekly pay rise he was after. The big wigs partied late.

As he told me he shook his head in disbelief, the money spent on just the bottled wine alone that evening ended up costing more than 12 months of the pay rise he was after. The AM signed the bill, the company paid, nearly everybody had a good time and what could have been his pay rise was all p!ssed out into the Gulf of Thailand a few hours later.

Now how did that mission statement go again….. something about integrity, fairness, shared values etc etc

The party was a one off that benefited many. His salary would have been on going. His bosses felt he wasn't worth the rise so he spat the dummy. Sounds a bit selfish to me.

Can't see the problem in any of this.

 

[glantone]

The party was a one off that benefited many. His salary would have been on going. His bosses felt he wasn't worth the rise so he spat the dummy. Sounds a bit selfish to me.

Can't see the problem in any of this.

I see where you’re coming from and maybe you're right, jb.

By the way, just so your under no illusions the send off involved a handful of male execs - started in a restaurant, ended in Go Go bars.....

Ultimately, I guess it’s about priorities – my friend immediately identified the irony in the Area Manager having no qualms about investing company money in food, beverage and entertainment on his behalf yet claimed the organization could ill afford a rise of thereabouts value on his behalf.

When he bade farewell to the AM, the AM was pissed with one hand up some young bar girl’s dress, the other groping another etc etc. From what I can gather the entire evening had very little to do with my colleague (he could have stayed home) but lots to do with consumption, partying.

Maybe it’s a matter of coming to the conclusion, as he did, that no matter how hard you try sometimes you just can’t beat a good bottle of red, excellent service and fleshy young thighs.

Funnily enough, if a more personal farewell had have been conducted on the hotel premises in his honour and in keeping with the organization’s modest finances line, he would have had nothing to grumble about.

 

[jb03]

I see where you’re coming from and maybe you're right, jb.

By the way, just so your under no illusions the send off involved a handful of male execs - started in a restaurant, ended in Go Go bars.....

Ultimately, I guess it’s about priorities – my friend immediately identified the irony in the Area Manager having no qualms about investing company money in food, beverage and entertainment on his behalf yet claimed the organization could ill afford a rise of thereabouts value on his behalf.

When he bade farewell to the AM, the AM was p!ssed with one hand up some young bar girl’s dress, the other groping another etc etc. From what I can gather the entire evening had very little to do with my colleague (he could have stayed home) but lots to do with consumption, partying.

Maybe it’s a matter of coming to the conclusion, as he did, that no matter how hard you try sometimes you just can’t beat a good bottle of red, excellent service and fleshy young thighs.

Funnily enough, if a more personal farewell had have been conducted on the hotel premises in his honour and in keeping with the organization’s modest finances line, he would have had nothing to grumble about.

Fair enough. Just sounds a bit like your mate took his bat and ball and went home when he couldn't get to bat first.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Sounds like your mate needs to get a life.

Really - he has a very nice and comfortable life now with early retirement and helping as a chairman of a medical research foundation and first class tickets to all the major events he wishes to attend - like AFL Grand Finals and Melbourne Cup. All the trimings of a self-made multi-millionaire. I would bet his life style is far better than most.

If he has kids, he's a selfish bastard, and should think about his greatest asset.

Unfortunately his wife was barren and could not have children - the only regret in their lives - they tried to adopt but back in the 70's adoption was a very difficult 10 year process which they finally gave up on when they were advised that the would have to send a monthly report of the child's progress to its natural mother - as he said to me back then "might as well get the mother to move in as well"

Think about all the possibilities before you post hey dukeos!

 

[RemoteTiger]

Oh, the cries from a socialist where its 'equal pay for everyone because everyone deserves a fair go'.

Having said that....I do agree with Remote and others who have spoken about execs gaining money and flying in jets while the company seeks subsidies and handouts from the Government.

Livers - mate I think you have got your arguments a tad mixed - under no circumstances have I ever advocated for a socialistic equal pay but I do believe everyone deserves a fair go.

I directed you to the tripple bottom line - obviously something you have never heard of - Companies today have to domore than JUST EARN MONEY as you so crudely put it - they also have to be good corporate citizens - that is all I was eluding too.

Lastly for such an intelligent guy - sometimes I find your comments resemble a mug's. How your style is slipping in the debating department is sad for all on PRE - before you made us think - now you are worse than Melbourne Newspaper Journalist who just muckrake and sling *smile* - for the sake of good argument on this illustrious forum - pick your game up to what we all know you can......

How's that for a slap on the wrist?........RT

 

[Liverpool]

Livers - mate I think you have got your arguments a tad mixed - under no circumstances have I ever advocated for a socialistic equal pay but I do believe everyone deserves a fair go.

And may I ask Remote, what constitutes this notion of a "fair go"?
Maybe I misunderstood your stance...but to me, a fair go is someone who should be paid for their skill set and what they actually do.
You cannot compare Joe Bloggs on a production line who starts work on the dot of 7am and then as soon as 3:30pm rolls around...BANG..they are out the door.
No work for them at home. No laptops open at 6pm. No answering phone calls from overseas at 2am. No meetings at 5pm.
However, the same people who work their 38 or 40 hour week complain when their boss has a 2 hour lunch....or nicks out of work early...or earns more than them.

So I ask again....what constitutes a "fair go"?

I directed you to the tripple bottom line - obviously something you have never heard of - Companies today have to domore than JUST EARN MONEY as you so crudely put it - they also have to be good corporate citizens - that is all I was eluding too.

If you assume I had not had not heard of this, then you would be grossly mistaken.
Of course, companies do more than "just earn money" as you say...but do not let your naivity cloud the reality of the situation.

Companies are answerable to shareholders....without shareholders there isn't money to invest into the company...and then there isn't any return for the shareholder.
No shareholder wants to plunge money into a company unless the company is going to make money and give them a return on their investment.

"Good corporate citizens" is just another term for "propaganda".....sure, they have to abide by legislation and corporate laws, but when out in the community, do you really believe that companies promote events or sponsor products just because they want to 'feel good' for themselves?
Companies promote/sponsor with the aim of two things:

* Good positive exposure for their company
* To give the perception to people that they care so people buy their products/services....the company makes money...and then the shareholders who are investing their money into the company make a return.

Companies exist to make money. That is the bottom line Remote. They are not a charity. They do not exist to "make people feel good'. They aim their sponsorship and promotions at areas that they think will benefit them.

 

[RemoteTiger]

And may I ask Remote, what constitutes this notion of a "fair go"?
Maybe I misunderstood your stance...but to me, a fair go is someone who should be paid for their skill set and what they actually do.
You cannot compare Joe Bloggs on a production line who starts work on the dot of 7am and then as soon as 3:30pm rolls around...BANG..they are out the door.
No work for them at home. No laptops open at 6pm. No answering phone calls from overseas at 2am. No meetings at 5pm.
However, the same people who work their 38 or 40 hour week complain when their boss has a 2 hour lunch....or nicks out of work early...or earns more than them.

So I ask again....what constitutes a "fair go"?

I agree with your statement above - what is a fair go? It is the ability to not only earn a wage/salary commensurate with your skill set and application but to also have the opportunity to advance your career through education and training - some do not have this - that is where (and only where) a Trade Union should be of value.

If you assume I had not had not heard of this, then you would be grossly mistaken.
Of course, companies do more than "just earn money" as you say...but do not let your naivity cloud the reality of the situation.

Companies are answerable to shareholders....without shareholders there isn't money to invest into the company...and then there isn't any return for the shareholder.
No shareholder wants to plunge money into a company unless the company is going to make money and give them a return on their investment.

"Good corporate citizens" is just another term for "propaganda".....sure, they have to abide by legislation and corporate laws, but when out in the community, do you really believe that companies promote events or sponsor products just because they want to 'feel good' for themselves?
Companies promote/sponsor with the aim of two things:

* Good positive exposure for their company
* To give the perception to people that they care so people buy their products/services....the company makes money...and then the shareholders who are investing their money into the company make a return.

Companies exist to make money. That is the bottom line Remote. They are not a charity. They do not exist to "make people feel good'. They aim their sponsorship and promotions at areas that they think will benefit them.

Shareholders would also be reluctant to invest in a Company that was not abiding by the environmental laws - which could lead to a class action where the shareholders could be implicated. That company maybe making millions in profit but a class action could easily wipe those profits away very quickly.

Whilst a company has one eye on profits and returns for shareholders it also has the other on protecting the company and in so doing protecting the shareholders.

You are right in your assertions that a company's sponsorships are a form of brand marketing for the company - I ought to know I do it with my 2 companies here in the local sports and schools and amateur theartre. In my case it also makes my companies part of the local community - my staff have become well known to the leaders in our community and we tend to get invited to all the community functions - a spin off is a very good feeling that not only are we part of the community but we are contributing to the community. Which in turn drives people into our shops which in turn drives turnover and profit.

Therefore my belief is that whilst aiming at a return for the shareholders most successful companies also abide by the environmental laws and invest in the community/nation to both achieve that profit and protect the shareholders.

I also think you and I are on the same page in this discussion it is just I feel you over emphasise company profits - it is an emphasis no doubt but it is not the only emphasis...............RT

 

[pahoffm]

Interesting that it is now becoming apparent that Australian corporations seem to be moving in advance of the introduction of the new labour relations bill/legislation.

From what seemed to be an argument by corporations, like Pacific Brands, that the global financial crisis was a reason for moving manufacturing operations overseas, now seems that corporations are adjusting their manufacturing resources to avoid the consequences of the legislation.

Why doesn't the Opposition make more of this?

Does the Rudd/Gillard Government have an agenda to keep this quiet so as not to affect their own proposed legislation?

Do the Unions have an agenda to side with the encumbent government in keeping this quiet, or to act to keep Australian jobs?

Time will tell.

 

[IanG]

Interesting that it is now becoming apparent that Australian corporations seem to be moving in advance of the introduction of the new labour relations bill/legislation.

From what seemed to be an argument by corporations, like Pacific Brands, that the global financial crisis was a reason for moving manufacturing operations overseas, now seems that corporations are adjusting their manufacturing resources to avoid the consequences of the legislation.

Why doesn't the Opposition make more of this?

Does the Rudd/Gillard Government have an agenda to keep this quiet so as not to affect their own proposed legislation?

Do the Unions have an agenda to side with the encumbent government in keeping this quiet, or to act to keep Australian jobs?

Time will tell.

So you're saying the real reason that companies like Pacific Brands are cutting jobs and moving them offshore is the industrial legislation not the GFC? And that workers rights should be reduced to keep jobs here?

 

[dukeos]

Unfortunately his wife was barren and could not have children - the only regret in their lives - they tried to adopt but back in the 70's adoption was a very difficult 10 year process which they finally gave up on when they were advised that the would have to send a monthly report of the child's progress to its natural mother - as he said to me back then "might as well get the mother to move in as well"

Think about all the possibilities before you post hey dukeos!

Umm...... I did, thats why I seperated the two. If he had kids, he would be a selfish bastard, period. Sorry to hear about his wife, I'm sure he'd trade his current life for a child or two and a more modest lifestyle.

 

[Liverpool]

I agree with your statement above - what is a fair go? It is the ability to not only earn a wage/salary commensurate with your skill set and application but to also have the opportunity to advance your career through education and training - some do not have this - that is where (and only where) a Trade Union should be of value.

To be honest, I wouldn't have thought a trade union does jack in this area.
I can't speak for all sectors but I have not heard the union here getting involved in training and to be honest, a good manager should be keen to train his own guys without any outside influences getting involved anyway.
It not only gives them the chance of promotion down the track....but it gives them some ownership and responsibility and a chance to see if they would make a good manager in the future, or not.
Also training allows you to then delegate work to them so you can spend more time on golf lunch more important work too.
A win-win siutation for all, I would have thought.

You are right in your assertions that a company's sponsorships are a form of brand marketing for the company - I ought to know I do it with my 2 companies here in the local sports and schools and amateur theartre. In my case it also makes my companies part of the local community - my staff have become well known to the leaders in our community and we tend to get invited to all the community functions - a spin off is a very good feeling that not only are we part of the community but we are contributing to the community. Which in turn drives people into our shops which in turn drives turnover and profit.

Thats what I mean Remote.
We can talk about companies being 'good corporate citizens' and abiding by environmental laws, industrial laws, OH&S laws, etc, etc....and the majority of companies do that, not only for shareholders but for their own well-being anyway.
Breaking the law = bad publicity = no investors = no turnover = no profit
End of the day the company abides by the law, not because they want to be "good citizens"...they do it so they don't lose money.

As for sponsorships.....sure, like you said...you do it...but would you sponsor schools/sports/theatres if there was NO return for yourself or your company?
Of course not.
You're not a charity.
You do it to feel good...but I am sure you feel a hell of a lot better too when the people you sponsor or have noticed your signage/name at the sponsored events come through your door and spend their money.

Again...the main emphasis and existence of a company is to make money. Full stop.
And if abiding by a few laws and sponsoring a few kids running around an oval helps that, then that is what will happen.

 

[Liverpool]

So you're saying the real reason that companies like Pacific Brands are cutting jobs and moving them offshore is the industrial legislation not the GFC? And that workers rights should be reduced to keep jobs here?

Ian,
Sorry to butt in here...but don't know if this is of any interest to yourself or Phantom.
Maybe the way of the future here too to keep jobs at home? :don't know


Ford workers agree to cost-cutting: union
Joe Szczesny
March 10, 2009 - 10:11AM
Workers at Ford Motor Co. have ratified a deal that will save the struggling automaker billions of US dollars in health care costs, the United Auto Workers union said Monday.
The announcement comes as the US government's "working group" on the automobile industry was meeting with the union and top managers of General Motors and Chrysler as they try to chart a way to restructure the two companies to avoid bankruptcy.
The deal will allow Ford to cut labor costs and meet up to 50 percent of its 13.2-billion-dollar obligation to a trust fund for retiree health care benefits with common stock instead of cash.
A similar agreement is expected shortly at GM and Chrysler because the union maintains similar contracts at each of the Detroit Three.
That will allow GM to cut its cash outlays by as much as 10 billion US dollars and Chrysler to improve its liquidity position by 5.3 billion US dollars.
A deal is also necessary in order for GM and Chrysler to meet a key requirement of their 17.4 billion dollar bailout packages ahead of a March 31 deadline.
While Ford has repeatedly said it has enough cash to survive the downturn without government aid, it has used the deep recession in the industry to seek concessions from the union.
Ford welcomed the deal, which it said would help it weather the collapse of auto sales amid a deepening recession and become more competitive in the long-term.
"By working together with our UAW partners, we identified solutions that will help Ford reach competitive parity with foreign-owned auto manufacturers and that are important to our efforts to operate through the current economic environment without accessing a bridge loan from the US government," Joe Hinrichs, Ford vice president for global manufacturing and labor affairs, said in a statement.
The UAW has always enjoyed better relations with Ford than with either Chrysler and GM and the union is using the negotiations with Ford to shield itself from demands for more concessions from the other two automakers.
"Once again UAW members have stepped up to make the difficult decisions necessary to deal with the reality of the current economy, the deteriorating auto industry as a whole and specifically the negative impact the economic climate is having on Ford Motor Co.," said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger.
The deal was approved by a relatively narrow margin: 59 percent of production workers and 58 percent of skilled-trades workers voted for the agreement.
"We are focused on doing everything possible to rebuild a great industry and keep manufacturing jobs in the United States," Gettelfinger said in a statement.
"As we have stated many times, in order to succeed, shared sacrifice will be required from all stakeholders, including executives, directors, shareholders, bondholders, dealers and suppliers."
The contract concessions will also eliminate two paid holidays, eliminate two one-time productivity bonuses due next year, end the quarterly cost-of-living wage adjustments and put new limits on supplemental unemployment benefits that workers have been paid for a half-century.
The Detroit Three reached a deal with the UAW in 2005 to transfer responsibility for retiree health care befits to the union by setting up a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA).
Ford said at the time that it would be able to reduce its overall health care liability by five billion US dollars as a result of the deal, which it estimated would also produce an average annual net corporate savings of about 650 million US dollars.
Ford shares closed up 2.35 percent at 1.74 US dollars.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/ford-workers-agree-to-costcutting-union-20090310-8tgp.html

 

[pahoffm]

So you're saying the real reason that companies like Pacific Brands are cutting jobs and moving them offshore is the industrial legislation not the GFC?

Not certain as yet but momentum seems to be building.

And that workers rights should be reduced to keep jobs here?

Rights are currently as they are now.

It is the new legislation that changes the Status Quo.

 

[RemoteTiger]

So you're saying the real reason that companies like Pacific Brands are cutting jobs and moving them offshore is the industrial legislation not the GFC? And that workers rights should be reduced to keep jobs here?

IMO - Pacific Brand had made there mind up to shift production overseas long before the GFC or this Labor Government got into power - the process takes time and the GFC and Rudd turned up during that time.

Further - again IMO there will be a lot more job losses - this is only the tip of the iceberg - however consumption of necessities will continue to be strong hence if you are in an organisation that either manufactures and/or distributes and/or retails necessities you should be ok - those that are luxury item manufacturers/distributors/vendors will take a fair hit.

Globalisation is going to force this upon Australia and no amount of Government handouts to prop up our domestic market will make up for the loss of exports which our economy relies on so heavily.

I'm in retail and whilst I am OK at the moment thanks to small businesses buying from me I can notice the decrease in general consumer traffic numbers entering my stores.........