Griffin Coal Workers 43% Pay Cut

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by JAJH

And you know this how? Are you privvy to the inner sanctions of the corporate world? I would bet there are many more execs who keep their jobs and pay packets than those on the lower rungs who don't.

Because I've seen in happen 3 times in 5 years where I work. You'd be naïve to think taking $5/ hour from some labourer was the only cost cutting exercise when times are tough.

Who do you think leaks wages staff redundancy info or pay cuts to media? The Union!

Our last "restructure" saw at least 50 salary staff get booted. The only media it got was in the Financial Review, share prices promptly jumped. The share marked loves a restructure.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by prydey

oh the poor souls.

i'd love to be on $75k/yr

It's all relative, I have to pay ~$2/litre for petrol.

Don't even ask about food prices, I pay $5 for a bottle of milk!

The cost of living in WA is completely out of whack with the rest of Australia.

No I don't work on the mines, just a hard working broadacre farmer.

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

It's all relative, I have to pay ~$2/litre for petrol.

Don't even ask about food prices, I pay $5 for a bottle of milk!

The cost of living in WA is completely out of whack with the rest of Australia.

No I don't work on the mines, just a hard working broadacre farmer.

generally I agree with you I work in WA quite a bit and its the most expensive **** coffee in the country

but I pay nearly $5 for a bottle of Dariy farmers milk and petrol at my local servo was $1.38 for E10 when I was driving home last night (haven't looked today)

and I'm in western sydney

[nstg8a]

A friend of mine works quite high up at rio Tinto here in Brisbane, a big part of her job is going round mine sites all round the world and deciding how many people get the chop when conditions aren't favourable.
People like to say it's always the little guy that gets the chop first, but given what's she's told me, it's not always the case.
If she can't see a benefit in a role then it's gone, regardless of position.

[Express]

Originally Posted by BradZ

Guess the industry without cheating if you'd seen my comment on another thread haha

Are you Maggie Beer?

[BradZ]

Originally Posted by Express

Are you Maggie Beer?

Im sure there's a subtle joke in that comment but I'm afraid I'm not following you lol

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

[GazzF6]

Collie is regional WA town, no FIFO.
Most of the workers live in town 5km's from the mines, others travel from outlying towns 30-60km's away.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by JAJH

Whether it's union backed or not, anytime you hear about big business pulling back on industry and either employees lose their job or are forced to take pay cuts, the one thing you never hear is the executives at the top taking a pay cut or losing their job! Shareholders don't always get a fair go either, market share & profitability dictate their dividend, but the good old boys club at the top keep raking in their over-inflated pay packets.
It's the corporate psychopaths who rule the world, not the governments.

This is true.
When we were going through our last negotiations we were basically told not to expect much because they have no money. This was the same year the CEO got a 34% pay rise. A few other executives got a big pay rises too.

We stood our ground and fought for it, the local newspaper wrote up an article on their website and the comments section was similar to these threads. Bagging out the workers for being greedy even though these people commenting had no idea about the company or the industry.



A 43% pay cut is harsh but better than no job at all. I hope this company is cutting cost on all levels and not just looking for a quick and easy cut so they can pay upper management all their extra bonuses this year.
I have no problem with upper management earning good money and getting pay rises, but it has to go both ways.

If these guys are now only getting $75,000 a year for 12 hour shift work, that is nothing special. Isn't the average Australian income like $70,000

[tlub]

I was born and grew up done my trade etc in collie but left town 15 years ago because the town was dying then,and there are several reasons for whats happened. 1always been over paid and under worked.2 now owned by Indians who only ever wanted to buy the mine to secure coal reserves to allow them to own power stations in india .3collie coal is highly combustable and not really suited for export .4 mines only ten minutes from town. 5 many at the mines expect the world but wont do the hard yards to get it. 6 the quality and availability (good coal) is now finished

[FTE]

Isn't the pay cut because they're not longer on a rotational roster? I'm pretty sure they've lost 43% because they've gone back to Monday to Friday

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by FTE

Isn't the pay cut because they're not longer on a rotational roster? I'm pretty sure they've lost 43% because they've gone back to Monday to Friday

That wouldn't surprise me.

I remember the teacher Federation sprouting all over the media that teachers got a pay cut, but the reality was just that they got a lower than CPI pay rise, and the union argued that was effectively a pay cut.

Hard to sympathise as I've had a pay cut 4 year running now...

[prydey]

My source tells me it's highly unlikely there will be anything close to a 43% pay cut. It's a case of threaten with a big cut to scare them into accepting a medium cut, more likely to be around 20%.

[Polyal]

Our blokes dropped 2hrs per shift just recently, that was worth ~$20k to them apparently.

[MITCHAY]

A rare risk with any EA. If the decision is upheld it pretty much guarantees a yes vote I would think.

I think I'd drop $25k+ if my EA was terminated.

[2011G6E]

Love the people laughing at the wealthy miners getting it in the neck...those rich ****** deserve it, what are they complaining about, they're crying crocodile tears, they choose to work in that job, blah blah blah...

Remember one little fact...

This was an official decision by the Fair Work system...which means it is now a precedent.

While you're feeling smug, you'd better hope your employer doesn't decide to save some money by going to the commission, crying poor, cancelling your workplace agreement, and reducing your wages...

[2011G6E]

Oh, and if you want to know how to judge if a business is fair or unfair towards workers, then just look and see if it has those things called "shareholders"...because quite usually, if it does, one thing and one thing alone matters: return to shareholders. And that's about it.

For example, a while ago the Commonwealth Bank said it was going to sack about a thousand staff to cut costs...and immediately, their share price sharply went up. As did the bonus for the head honcho. That just shows how immoral the whole thing has become.

I saw once someone said that it's funny how, for workers, a century has gone by and things have come full circle. A hundred years ago, workers were expendable drones with little to no rights...then the union movement started and got rights like pay, sick leave, holidays, and all the other rights we enjoy. Then came a time of workers having a lot of power and being able to set the standards. Now it's gone right back the other way again...workers have little rights, unions have no power, and the "Fair Work" commission sides with bosses nearly all the time to allow them to do whatever they like to workers pay and conditions.

And this is a "better" way to run a country...?

[FTE]

I'm not defending the pay cut but mines are closing all over Australia so I think it's a little more than Fair Work siding with bosses.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

It's all relative, I have to pay ~$2/litre for petrol.

Don't even ask about food prices, I pay $5 for a bottle of milk!

The cost of living in WA is completely out of whack with the rest of Australia.

No I don't work on the mines, just a hard working broadacre farmer.

And you pay those prices because the area is full of miners earning ridiculous pay that they are just not worth.

Example. I lived in Karratha in WA in 2002 working in the Army as a advanced medic and often on patrol throughout the Pilbara region (it is a surveillance unit). During patrols I was working in very tough conditions in up to 50 degree heat with limited water supply. I did all this for an income of <$60K, I had all the skills and more of an industrial paramedic. The medics from the iron ore mines were earning near on $100k more than me for doing less clinical work, with less training and sitting in an air-conditioned office most of the day. Why, apparently their job was dangerous, spent time away from their family and they lived in a remote area. I can guarantee the rate of injury/death in the army far exceeds the mining industry, I operated in far more remote areas and I spent far more time away from my family.

Because of the pays the mining and construction in the area were giving out prices for everything rocketed out of control. Petrol was $1.60-$1.70 from memory, food was expensive and my rent for a 4x2 house was $1500/week. Due to the money grab that was going on as everyone wanted a piece of the boom, the ones that suffered were the ones not getting the money. Meanwhile all the miners and construction workers getting the big buck bought up Harley's, Ford F350 4x4 with $60k of mods and boats. Then from the door of their jacked up F350 towing a massive boat they complained about the cost of fuel.

The same thing has happened here in Gladstone, houses were built at crazy prices as everyone wanted a piece of the boom and rent went through the roof. Want an example of the effect of the boom here, have a look at the size of the Harley dealership here. Now the down turn has hit, construction has ceased because it is no longer financially viable and as a result the vacancy rate of those houses is high, rents are down and people are defaulting on loans. Unemployment is high, crime goes up, health deteriorates etc. But now it is the governments fault that the boom is over.

I would be very interested in what these poor coal miners in Collie (which is not a remote area) were earning then and now. The reality is that 43% is probably just a rationalisation from ridiculous pay to something closer to what they are actually worth.

[BradZ]

Anyone know how this affects smaller mines in other states? Eg. Pooncarie and perhaps Ouyen.

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

And you pay those prices because the area is full of miners earning ridiculous pay that they are just not worth.

Example. I lived in Karratha in WA in 2002 working in the Army as a advanced medic and often on patrol throughout the Pilbara region (it is a surveillance unit). During patrols I was working in very tough conditions in up to 50 degree heat with limited water supply. I did all this for an income of <$60K, I had all the skills and more of an industrial paramedic. The medics from the iron ore mines were earning near on $100k more than me for doing less clinical work, with less training and sitting in an air-conditioned office most of the day. Why, apparently their job was dangerous, spent time away from their family and they lived in a remote area. I can guarantee the rate of injury/death in the army far exceeds the mining industry, I operated in far more remote areas and I spent far more time away from my family.

What's the likelihood of you being made redundant? $60k (or CPI equivalent over time) for life sounds better than $100k for 5 years not knowing if you have a job the next day...

As for injury-related death rates: http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/...-2010-2014.pdf

MINING

Total deaths 2010: 5 Deaths per 100,000 2010: 2.7

Total deaths 2011: 6 Deaths per 100,000 2011: 2.7

Total deaths 2012: 8 Deaths per 100,000 2012: 3.0

Total deaths 2013: 8 Deaths per 100,000 2013: 3.0

Total deaths 2014: 10 Deaths per 100,000 2014: 4.0

DEFENCE

Total deaths 2010: 1 Deaths per 100,000 2010: 3.4

Total deaths 2011: 3 Deaths per 100,000 2011: 9.7

Total deaths 2012: 1 Deaths per 100,000 2012: 3.1

Total deaths 2013: 1 Deaths per 100,000 2013: 3.1

Total deaths 2014: 0 Deaths per 100,000 2014: 0

Finding results for suicides is difficult though. Both industries are fairly **** for suicides, mental health, family breakdown...

[TheSneakiness]

Just to chuck in my sob story...

I went 4 years without a pay rise but had more lumped on me and had to learn more systems than the previous support officer (and had created new systems in that time), meanwhile rent, fuel, food, utilities went up and up and up.

It was only 3 months ago I finally got a promotion, raise and had also got a bonus. Now I'm comfortable and have almost met my career goal I set out to myself nearly 13 years ago.

I wouldn't know what to do with the wage miners were getting and I struggle to comprehend how their wage "is not enough".

FWIW the "average" wage of the country in reality is much lower than stated.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

What's the likelihood of you being made redundant? $60k (or CPI equivalent over time) for life sounds better than $100k for 5 years not knowing if you have a job the next day...

As for injury-related death rates: http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/...-2010-2014.pdf

MINING

Total deaths 2010: 5 Deaths per 100,000 2010: 2.7

Total deaths 2011: 6 Deaths per 100,000 2011: 2.7

Total deaths 2012: 8 Deaths per 100,000 2012: 3.0

Total deaths 2013: 8 Deaths per 100,000 2013: 3.0

Total deaths 2014: 10 Deaths per 100,000 2014: 4.0

DEFENCE

Total deaths 2010: 1 Deaths per 100,000 2010: 3.4

Total deaths 2011: 3 Deaths per 100,000 2011: 9.7

Total deaths 2012: 1 Deaths per 100,000 2012: 3.1

Total deaths 2013: 1 Deaths per 100,000 2013: 3.1

Total deaths 2014: 0 Deaths per 100,000 2014: 0

Finding results for suicides is difficult though. Both industries are fairly **** for suicides, mental health, family breakdown...

So mining has a 5 year average of work injury related deaths of 3.08/100,000, defence has an average of 3.86/100,000.

Work related deaths don't paint the full picture, serious injury need to be considered as well. While the death rate in the Defence may not be as high you need to remember that it is lower in some segments than others. In defence the rate of serious injury is quite high with many injuries resulting in the loss of employment, a simple slipped disc in the back can be career ending. Defence also has a shorter career span due to many factors including injury rates, social difficulties, mental health problems etc, very few soldiers remain for a long term career so it is not a lifetime as you seem to assume. I would venture to say that defence is a shorter career on average than mining. Also in mining they are normally in trades and skills that are transferable to other sectors such as manufacturing, industry, agriculture etc. Defence roles tend to be more defence specific with less opportunity for transfer of those skills to non defence sectors. I am a good example of this as 6 years in infantry gave me very little as there is not much call for tank killers in the civilian world. Even 7 years as an advanced army medic did not mean I was qualified to be a paramedic in the civilian world, it was the 3 years of study after the army that did. I think doing a comparison of sector wide against sector wide does not really tell the story as some jobs in each sector are much safer than others. When you define it down to the particular job roles thing become interesting. A good example is what is the incident of both death and serious injury in industrial paramedics and emergency paramedic staff. I am not sure what it is for industrial paramedics but I do know it is not higher than emergency paramedics as a study a few years ago proved that the most dangerous profession in Australia in terms of serious injury and death is the emergency paramedic. In a rate per capita of employees paramedics were far higher than mining, transport, police, fire services and defence etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-police.html
Yet an industrial paramedic of lower qualification than an emergency paramedic, with lesser responsibility and with lower work related risks gets paid more than his emergency paramedic equivalent. That is a little snapshot to illustrate that due to the mining boom trades and professions attracted pay rates that were far and above what similar employees got outside the mining sector, a rationalisation had to happen.

$60k (or CPI equivalent over time) for life sounds better than $100k for 5 years not knowing if you have a job the next day...

So they entered the industry and were paid very well knowing that it had a very unstable future and being paid a lot better than their non mining counterparts due to that instability. Now the instability has hit and it is a case of take a pay cut or lose the job, not really a time to complain as they have already been paid for that uncertain employment. Can't have your cake and eat it to.

[D Block]

Reports of a death at WA mine over night.

Miners earn every cent they get.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by D Block

Reports of a death at WA mine over night.

Miners earn every cent they get.

No disrespect intended and my condolences to his family, friends and colleagues but by that reasoning trades and professions that have a higher fatality rate should be paid more, which is not the case. Just because a trade or profession suffers a fatality does not mean they earn or are worth every cent they get, it is a lot more complex than that.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So mining has a 5 year average of work injury related deaths of 3.08/100,000, defence has an average of 3.86/100,000.

If you want to replace ratios with actual people, 37 miners died in that period, six defence personnel died in that period.

Work related deaths don't paint the full picture, serious injury need to be considered as well. While the death rate in the Defence may not be as high you need to remember that it is lower in some segments than others. In defence the rate of serious injury is quite high with many injuries resulting in the loss of employment, a simple slipped disc in the back can be career ending.

Plenty of serious workplace injuries occur in mining also, which also result in loss of employment, and a simple slipped disc in the back can also be career ending.

Defence also has a shorter career span due to many factors including injury rates, social difficulties, mental health problems etc, very few soldiers remain for a long term career so it is not a lifetime as you seem to assume.
I would venture to say that defence is a shorter career on average than mining.

You're right, I should not have indicated that a defence is for life, but all of those problems you've listed apply to miners as well.

Also in mining they are normally in trades and skills that are transferable to other sectors such as manufacturing, industry, agriculture etc. Defence roles tend to be more defence specific with less opportunity for transfer of those skills to non defence sectors. I am a good example of this as 6 years in infantry gave me very little as there is not much call for tank killers in the civilian world. Even 7 years as an advanced army medic did not mean I was qualified to be a paramedic in the civilian world, it was the 3 years of study after the army that did.

In my particular role my expertise is limited to one worksite. If I was to transfer to another worksite I'd have the general gist of the job sorted, but I'd have to re-learn every single plant item I work on as well as the processes involved, and geography of the site.

What you're saying above stresses that the defence force needs improved training for civilian-compatible qualifications and experience.

I think doing a comparison of sector wide against sector wide does not really tell the story as some jobs in each sector are much safer than others. When you define it down to the particular job roles thing become interesting. A good example is what is the incident of both death and serious injury in industrial paramedics and emergency paramedic staff. I am not sure what it is for industrial paramedics but I do know it is not higher than emergency paramedics as a study a few years ago proved that the most dangerous profession in Australia in terms of serious injury and death is the emergency paramedic. In a rate per capita of employees paramedics were far higher than mining, transport, police, fire services and defence etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-police.html
Yet an industrial paramedic of lower qualification than an emergency paramedic, with lesser responsibility and with lower work related risks gets paid more than his emergency paramedic equivalent.

My hat goes off to all paramedics. But if pay and conditions were based on risk of death then you guys would be paid more than CEOs.

That is a little snapshot to illustrate that due to the mining boom trades and professions attracted pay rates that were far and above what similar employees got outside the mining sector, a rationalisation had to happen.
So they entered the industry and were paid very well knowing that it had a very unstable future and being paid a lot better than their non mining counterparts due to that instability. Now the instability has hit and it is a case of take a pay cut or lose the job, not really a time to complain as they have already been paid for that uncertain employment. Can't have your cake and eat it to.

I understand what you're saying about instability and the like, and yes when such a situation arises like that at Griffin Coal it doesn't appear to be sustainable at face value for the workers to maintain their current pay (and possibly conditions). This 43% pay cut (and who knows what conditions are being removed) likely stems from two things:

1) Those at the top selling the company (same old workers on-site, new boss to make profits for), then mismanagement from the top which affects those at the bottom.

2) The market conditions changing adversely - which would be part supply/demand, part mismanagement from the top.

Those people who think the regular everyday workers are the ones being greedy truly have no idea of the amount of $$$ those at the very top play with.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

FWIW the "average" wage of the country in reality is much lower than stated.

No, the average is the average. A better measure is the median, because that gives an idea of where the majority lie, unlike the average, which is skewed by the handful of people making gazillions. And yes, the median is well below the average.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Just because a trade or profession suffers a fatality does not mean they earn or are worth every cent they get, it is a lot more complex than that.

Were it the case, the so-called gender pay gap would be a chasm... because men are 20x more likely to die on the job than women. One inequality the feminazis are surprisingly quiet on....

[geckoGT]

If you want to replace ratios with actual people, 37 miners died in that period, six defence personnel died in that period.

What is the point of looking at individual numbers of deaths between the two sectors? That gives a false impression of the reality, risk is a result of the number of deaths compared to the size of the workforce, the higher the ratio the higher the risk. Therefore the ratio means much more than the raw death numbers.

You're right, I should not have indicated that a defence is for life, but all of those problems you've listed apply to miners as well.

Agreed I have no doubt it does, in fact I know it does as I have friends and relatives in the mining industry. However what is the rate in comparison to defence that would justify increased remuneration to the mining industry?

What you're saying above stresses that the defence force needs improved training for civilian-compatible qualifications and experience.

They have made large efforts to achieve that but in the end for many roles in the defence force it is impossible to do. Lets look at my military career. I was trained as an infantry rifleman, a driver and crew commander of an armoured personnel carrier and also a anti armour operator (tank killer). None of those jobs have any civilian counterpart. As an advanced medic yes there are some crossovers to paramedic but not a direct qualification. Good news on that front is that work has been done in this area and it is a bit easier for medics leaving the army now to work as a paramedic, they still have to do 2 years of a degree though.

My hat goes off to all paramedics. But if pay and conditions were based on risk of death then you guys would be paid more than CEOs.

I only mentioned employment risks because from what I have seen every time a union is beating the drum pushing for more pay and better conditions in the mining sector this has been a considerable item of their agenda. Meanwhile many other workers in different sectors carried on taking bigger losses with no increase in pay or conditions to compensate for those risks. I am not saying it is the primary factor but it does get involved. Just like I also mentioned social factors, responsibility and education which on the surface seems to have been missed.
I understand what you're saying about instability and the like, and yes when such a situation arises like that at Griffin Coal it doesn't appear to be sustainable at face value for the workers to maintain their current pay (and possibly conditions).

This 43% pay cut (and who knows what conditions are being removed) likely stems from two things:

1) Those at the top selling the company (same old workers on-site, new boss to make profits for), then mismanagement from the top which affects those at the bottom.

2) The market conditions changing adversely - which would be part supply/demand, part mismanagement from the top.

I agree with you completely in this comment, I just don't automatically assume the worker is hard done by and the company is evil. Sometimes the workers have to take some responsibility to share some of the pain in a market downturn, something they rarely do and particularly not without being told they have to. A smaller scale example of this is my parents farm. They own a rather large wheat farm in WA and employ both seasonal and also full-time workers. During the mining boom they found themselves having to pay more for workers to attract good employees because workers with the skills they were after were earning much more money in the mining sector. At the same time wheat prices were often not good or production was not good. Added to that the cost of production in materials, fuel, machinery etc was increasing. The result was they took a large personal financial hit with it getting to the point that they were extremely stressed about how they were going to pay wages. Those stresses arguably contributed largely to my mother developing high blood pressure, which lead to the 3 aneurysms in her brain which ultimately lead to her bleed on the brain last year which could have cost her life. Apart from stress she is a very clean living person with good diet and non smoker so stress was an enormous factor. At a time when company income was not good they were having to pay more for workers than they had ever been worth before. None of the workers offered to take a reduction in pay in order to keep the farm alive nor would virtually anyone reading expect they should. My parents got through it at a large personal loss and the farm has survived. The amusing thing is during times of good income for my parents they have bought real estate which gives the appearance they are well off and can afford to pay their workers more. What people do not realise is that real estate is what they sold off to keep the farm alive and keep those same workers employed when income was not so good.

I use that example as a large corporation is largely in the same situation but on a much larger scale. A company is not a inanimate object with a large bucket of gold, it is actually a group of people with their own financial security invested in it. That is not to say I think company executives have nothing to answer for or that greed in the upper levels of company management is not an issue, I just don't believe it is the only issue.

I found it rather interesting that so many here have made reference to share holders and from comments made they appear so evil. I am a share holder in Rio Tinto and BHP, with my money that I worked hard for and it is my future financial security. Shareholders are not big player mining tycoons, they are also the little people trying to give themselves a stable financial future after working very hard for what they have. If one of the companies I owned shares in was in a market downturn producing less profit (decreased dividends) and did not mange that with reduction in production costs I would want to know why. If they maintained staffing levels and pay rates that were not supported by the market conditions, that would have to be one of many elements that would cause me to lose faith in the company in terms of my financial stability. That may lead myself and other shareholders to want to pull our money out of the company and take it elsewhere. Result of that could ultimately mean collapse of the company, lots of people lose money including the little people and the workers are out of a job.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by b0son

Were it the case, the so-called gender pay gap would be a chasm... because men are 20x more likely to die on the job than women. One inequality the feminazis are surprisingly quiet on....

Interesting point. Without opening a can of worms in my role females are paid the same and supposedly have the same job description. Having said that I have seen times a dual female crew have requested the assistance of a male crew to assist lifting a heavy patient. On many occasions I have been involved in this situation the female crew members eagerly pick up the kits, monitor and bags and leave the males to carry the bulk of the weight of the patient. The incidence of lifting related injuries in the ambulance service is higher in males than females, I wonder why.

[Stefan]

You can skew it however you like, if the commodity prices on a world scale have dropped and mines a no longer viable as they no longer generate the $$$ they once did, they obviously are not in a position to continue to pay large wages, keep on staff and offer huge amounts of overtime.

If you earn less than you did 5 years ago, can the local pub / car dealer / travel agent now come knocking on your door and demand you keep spending money in their establishment? Or do you have to cut back?

What is it with people these days? The age of entitlement...