Under paying workers

south of heaven

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
29,247
Reaction score
25,695
I used to work for Woolworths and ended up being a trainee manager but quit as the pay was shithouse for a trainee as it cut my pay in half. Anyway, both companies are the same no doubt with their ways of doing things.

Talking of taking shit, I don't think I ever paid for frangers the whole time I worked there, which is quite funny as i was using them quite a bit sleeping with some of the checkout chicks from work. Oh fun times. Because it was a large store, the checkout chicks getting turned over all the time, it was like a production line of fresh smoo for a hot blood 18 year old.

I could tell you some stories too from that place, man a lot of things went on there.
Worked at woolies also lol
 

south of heaven

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
29,247
Reaction score
25,695
HAHa i worked in several coles supermarkets as well where you were basically forced to work overtime and no pay. Disgusting company to work for.... but your also right made it up by the razors and other items lol
The funniest thing was my end of time I was working night fill the night manager was a **** and for some reason someone fucked up and ordered a double load the amount of shit on the floor was hilarious the store manager walks in flying offhis head at me .I said I done my required work of 40 cartons an hour and won't be staying back as im not a manager he told me I had to stay back I said I'll just call the union first . Then I told him I was kidding I won't call the union I quit as of now and going for a beer at an early opener.
They tries to get me back for a few weeks lol
It was very liberating
 

MatstaDogg

The Bearded Baker
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
8,732
The funniest thing was my end of time I was working night fill the night manager was a **** and for some reason someone fucked up and ordered a double load the amount of shit on the floor was hilarious the store manager walks in flying offhis head at me .I said I done my required work of 40 cartons an hour and won't be staying back as im not a manager he told me I had to stay back I said I'll just call the union first . Then I told him I was kidding I won't call the union I quit as of now and going for a beer at an early opener.
They tries to get me back for a few weeks lol
It was very liberating
I'm sure it went something like this :tearsofjoy:

 

MatstaDogg

The Bearded Baker
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
8,732
I worked in the bakery at Woolies back in the day, although I took almost as many sickies as I did actual days at work
When i was working at Woolies, their was a husband and wife who worked in the bakery there. Anyhow, long story short they got busted having a shag in there one day.
 
Last edited:

Howard Moon

Kennel Addict
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
3,445
When u was working at Woolies, their was a husband and wife who worked in the bakery there. Anyhow, long story short they got busted having a shag in there one day.

There was an older couple working at the bakery I worked at

Dear God... No.......
 

MatstaDogg

The Bearded Baker
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
8,732
There was an older couple working at the bakery I worked at

Dear God... No.......
Haha, well the ones I was talking about where only in their early 30's and recently got married at the time so guess they were still in the honeymoon mode :tongueclosed:
 

hayes

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
1,927
Reaction score
815
I remember working at woollies 20 years ago at Bass Hill they used to cigarettes in cages that where on wheels liquor was stored on the pallets in the loading.

One night two cages and pallet of whiskey disappeared.
 

MatstaDogg

The Bearded Baker
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
8,732
Seems like there are a few ex woolies employees around here on the Kennel. First job straight out of high school for me oh so many years ago :laughing:
 

Kempsey Dog

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
SC Top Scorer
Tipping Champion
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
23,486
Reaction score
24,813
Wife works for Rebel (super retail group covers BCF Supercheap etc) they came out ages admitted to underpaying managers for years. Still waiting for them to pay her out. They try dodge responsibility and low ball and hope staff sign off on it. Keeping a diary and logging all your shifts is key even if you think you aren't affected
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
https://www.9news.com.au/national/c...ket-news/d377363f-ec24-4383-8384-a6a243eac9b8

Coles has underpaid staff at least $20 million over the last six years.

The supermarket giant made the announcement today as it reported first-half retail earnings of $725 million.
In a statement, the supermarket acknowledged approximately five per cent of its salaried Liquor managers had been underpaid relative to the General Retail Industry Award (GRIA).

Coles has been underpaying staff by $20 million, the supermarket giant admitted. (AAP)

Those managers are owed a combined $3 million, and there will be another $1 million in interest and costs.
Approximately five per cent of supermarket managers have been underpaid in the past six years to the tune of $12 million, and $4 million will be paid in interest and costs.

The statement noted the review of the Liquor business is "nearing completion" and the supermarkets review was "still in progress", which means more money could be owed.
______________

In the latest of this epidemic sweeping the business world, Coles has reportedly underpaid it's staff by $20mill over 6 years. I'm not a gambling man but I would bet my house that over the same time period of 6 years, not one farking executive, board member, director or consultant was underpaid one red cent!

Watch this space as Coles are fined $500K, which is about 10% of what they would have earned off the interest alone of that $20mill.

This has got to be a deliberate business tactic of under paying your staff, reaping the benefits of that and then coming clean with a "oh we are so sorry, look what we accidentality did...". How can so many supposedly smart business operators make the same mistake?
I've worked the last 10-12 years in few corporate jobs and a big part of that role was sitting very close to payroll and accounting teams and checking whether the company was doing the right thing (for example paying employees the right amount).

I can tell you that in 99.9% of cases, companies (particularly big corporates) are not part of some broad conspiracy to rip off 'the little man' to give more money to the monopoly bosses.

However, it is true that particularly in blue collar work forces. under payments (as well as over payments) occur.

You don't hear about the over payments because it is not against the law to over-pay an employee.

In relation to the under payments, they were generally always the result of Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that are so long and compilcated and hard to understand that it is extremely easy to process a payroll payment that isn't strictly correct.

If you ever find a copy of some particularly older EBAs (try reading some from Victoria) you'll quickly understand why under (and over) payments happen. THey are enormous and subjective in some instances. The issue isn't with companies payroll - the issue is with Australia's industrial relations system that thinks a huge thick bible of a document should be created to describe something as simple as how much workers should be paid.

On top of that, these EBAs get setup in payroll systems that largely automate a lot of the payroll process. If you setup EBA conditions incorrectly in a payroll system (such as allowances or hourly rates or others), then the number of under (and over payments) tend to accumulate very quickly until the company realises there is a problem and corrects it.

On top of that I will add that the people processing payroll are generally Mums in their 40s, 50s and 60s. They are not fat cat rich businessmen 'trying to rip off the little man'. They are Mums who have chosen a job that fits with having kids. Payroll generally allows them flexibility with working hours like being able to pick up kids from school at 3pm.
 

KambahOne

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
4,735
I've worked the last 10-12 years in few corporate jobs and a big part of that role was sitting very close to payroll and accounting teams and checking whether the company was doing the right thing (for example paying employees the right amount).

I can tell you that in 99.9% of cases, companies (particularly big corporates) are not part of some broad conspiracy to rip off 'the little man' to give more money to the monopoly bosses.

However, it is true that particularly in blue collar work forces. under payments (as well as over payments) occur.

You don't hear about the over payments because it is not against the law to over-pay an employee.

In relation to the under payments, they were generally always the result of Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that are so long and compilcated and hard to understand that it is extremely easy to process a payroll payment that isn't strictly correct.

If you ever find a copy of some particularly older EBAs (try reading some from Victoria) you'll quickly understand why under (and over) payments happen. THey are enormous and subjective in some instances. The issue isn't with companies payroll - the issue is with Australia's industrial relations system that thinks a huge thick bible of a document should be created to describe something as simple as how much workers should be paid.

On top of that, these EBAs get setup in payroll systems that largely automate a lot of the payroll process. If you setup EBA conditions incorrectly in a payroll system (such as allowances or hourly rates or others), then the number of under (and over payments) tend to accumulate very quickly until the company realises there is a problem and corrects it.

On top of that I will add that the people processing payroll are generally Mums in their 40s, 50s and 60s. They are not fat cat rich businessmen 'trying to rip off the little man'. They are Mums who have chosen a job that fits with having kids. Payroll generally allows them flexibility with working hours like being able to pick up kids from school at 3pm.
That's some really good points man thanks. I'm probably a bit tainted with my view on business as I can't reveal exactly what I do, but lets say I identify and report gronks doing dodgy shit within the Health industry. And while some of that dodgy shit is accidental, most of it is very much deliberate.

I suppose one of the biggest issues I have in these situations is the punishments rarely fit the crimes. While the companies may be fined, the owners/directors more often than not get aware scot free with their ill gotten gains in the form of yearly bonuses. A recent example was that exec from Westpac Brian Hatzer. CEO of a bank charged with 23 million breaches of anti-money laundering laws and he walks away with a $2.7mill payout.

Our regulators need the power to strip every single asset from these CEOs and Board members and directors, their wives, their families, in fact anyone who benefitted from their crime should have their assets confiscated and liquidated. Unless there is suitable deterrent to these crimes they will continue to occur.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
That's some really good points man thanks. I'm probably a bit tainted with my view on business as I can't reveal exactly what I do, but lets say I identify and report gronks doing dodgy shit within the Health industry. And while some of that dodgy shit is accidental, most of it is very much deliberate.

I suppose one of the biggest issues I have in these situations is the punishments rarely fit the crimes. While the companies may be fined, the owners/directors more often than not get aware scot free with their ill gotten gains in the form of yearly bonuses. A recent example was that exec from Westpac Brian Hatzer. CEO of a bank charged with 23 million breaches of anti-money laundering laws and he walks away with a $2.7mill payout.

Our regulators need the power to strip every single asset from these CEOs and Board members and directors, their wives, their families, in fact anyone who benefitted from their crime should have their assets confiscated and liquidated. Unless there is suitable deterrent to these crimes they will continue to occur.
Yep I think everyone generally struggles with the concept of bank bosses getting millions of dollars after doing a shit job.

The problem is they each have contracts that stipulate what they get if they leave.

Also, we need to consider intent and degree of negligence when it comes to applying blame to executives (such as a CEO).

Just because a company slightly under pays workers due to extremely complicated EBAs that were accidentally set up incorrectly in the company's payroll system, shouldn't mean that we hold the CEO accountable and call for him or her to be sacked.

It's just part of the complication of business in Australia and sometimes mistakes happen. Companies should be pushed to comply and make accurate payments and perhaps some modest fines should be levied on the companies in question.
 

KambahOne

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
4,735
Yep I think everyone generally struggles with the concept of bank bosses getting millions of dollars after doing a shit job.

The problem is they each have contracts that stipulate what they get if they leave.

Also, we need to consider intent and degree of negligence when it comes to applying blame to executives (such as a CEO).

Just because a company slightly under pays workers due to extremely complicated EBAs that were accidentally set up incorrectly in the company's payroll system, shouldn't mean that we hold the CEO accountable and call for him or her to be sacked.

It's just part of the complication of business in Australia and sometimes mistakes happen. Companies should be pushed to comply and make accurate payments and perhaps some modest fines should be levied on the companies in question.
Agreed, but I would strongly advocate for far stiffer penalties for CEO and alike for deliberate systematic breaches of law. Although I will admit it would be difficult to prove intent.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Agreed, but I would strongly advocate for far stiffer penalties for CEO and alike for deliberate systematic breaches of law. Although I will admit it would be difficult to prove intent.
The thing is, the majority of CEO's dont generally give a rats ass or even know what is going on with a companies payroll.

They have a CFO who manage the finance dept.

The finance dept generally will have the following teams: Accounting, Payroll, Treasury, Audit, Tax.

In a big corporate the finance dept may consist of a few hundred people.

Within that one payroll team you may have a Head of Payroll who reports to a financial controller working for the CFO. Then you have a few payroll managers and supervisors and then the payroll administrators.

The only people with a level of detail to really understand what is truly going on within payroll are the payroll team.

Even the Financial controller and CFO won't really know what's going on apart from a few headline issues.

So it isn't reasonable to me to say that CEO's should be held accountable for processing errors down in payroll.

CEOs just don't make deliberate systematic breaches of law (at least when it comes to under-paying staff). Maybe in other areas but not payroll.

The closest case you could make to a breach of law would be to say that the CEO didn't ensure the Payroll team was staffed with competent payroll staff / technology and because of that the errors happened.
 

KambahOne

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
4,735
The thing is, the majority of CEO's dont generally give a rats ass or even know what is going on with a companies payroll.

They have a CFO who manage the finance dept.

The finance dept generally will have the following teams: Accounting, Payroll, Treasury, Audit, Tax.

In a big corporate the finance dept may consist of a few hundred people.

Within that one payroll team you may have a Head of Payroll who reports to a financial controller working for the CFO. Then you have a few payroll managers and supervisors and then the payroll administrators.

The only people with a level of detail to really understand what is truly going on within payroll are the payroll team.

Even the Financial controller and CFO won't really know what's going on apart from a few headline issues.

So it isn't reasonable to me to say that CEO's should be held accountable for processing errors down in payroll.

CEOs just don't make deliberate systematic breaches of law (at least when it comes to under-paying staff). Maybe in other areas but not payroll.

The closest case you could make to a breach of law would be to say that the CEO didn't ensure the Payroll team was staffed with competent payroll staff / technology and because of that the errors happened.
Sorry but that reads like the opening statement from a defence lawyer representing a CEO of a company that under paid its staff.

I get that a CEO is not responsible for Mary skimming off the books to pay for her pokie machine habit. But if a company has systematically breached the law then the CEO and Board and Directors of that company must be held to account. If not them than who?
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Sorry but that reads like the opening statement from a defence lawyer representing a CEO of a company that under paid its staff.

I get that a CEO is not responsible for Mary skimming off the books to pay for her pokie machine habit. But if a company has systematically breached the law then the CEO and Board and Directors of that company must be held to account. If not them than who?
Maybe it's the limitation of messages on an internet forum not conveying someones meaning properly.

I was just trying to explain to people that CEOs are not there with a computer in front of them making changes to workers payrolls that results in under payments.

I agree that if there are systematic breaches then company executives should be prosecuted and the company itself should wear a big fine.

However, my point is that in 90% or more of cases, it's not systematic and it's not intentional, it's just innocent mistakes made when trying to setup these complicated EBAs in payroll systems.
 

KambahOne

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
4,735
Maybe it's the limitation of messages on an internet forum not conveying someones meaning properly.

I was just trying to explain to people that CEOs are not there with a computer in front of them making changes to workers payrolls that results in under payments.

I agree that if there are systematic breaches then company executives should be prosecuted and the company itself should wear a big fine.

However, my point is that in 90% or more of cases, it's not systematic and it's not intentional, it's just innocent mistakes made when trying to setup these complicated EBAs in payroll systems.
Well you've lessened my skepticism of CEO's a wee little bit 8-), but like I said I'm probably biased in my view from my experiences.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Well you've lessened my skepticism of CEO's a wee little bit 8-), but like I said I'm probably biased in my view from my experiences.
Yep big corporates are flush with enormous teams and departments of people that actually has the effect of creating segregation between executives and important/risk areas like payroll and accounts payable.

Some CEOs I know don't even have a company PC and don't ever login to company financial systems. Their ability to do ANYTHING is basically next to nothing.
 

KambahOne

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
4,735
Yep big corporates are flush with enormous teams and departments of people that actually has the effect of creating segregation between executives and important/risk areas like payroll and accounts payable.

Some CEOs I know don't even have a company PC and don't ever login to company financial systems. Their ability to do ANYTHING is basically next to nothing.
Yeah see again my skepticism hairs raise as I see that structure as a deliberate complicated mechanism in order to protect the CEO from blame should shit go balls up. But I don't want to rehash this again.

I see the CEO of a company as ultimately responsible for what occurs in that company. That's their role, that's their skill base, that's their responsibility.
 
Top