Most importantly, they only need to pay ~$27/hr immediately.
This seems OK at first, as it is above the ~$25/hr minimum wage for casuals (note to non-Aussies: this figure includes a 25% "casual loading" to account for the fact that there is no sick leave, annual leave or guaranteed minimum hours).
However, this doesn't consider the fact that the drivers supply their own vehicle as well as out-of-pocket expenses for fuel, maintenance and general depreciation on the vehicle itself. When you take these additional costs into consideration, that initial ~$27 looks closer to an illegally low ~$20/hr.
The fact that they were both unpunished for finding loopholes in employment law as well as given a free pass to continue for another 3 years (despite literally being Amazon and therefore having the working capital to pay their drivers properly immediately) looks like it's a win for them.
Australia's biggest and most profitable publicly owned company certainly doesn't pay their drivers anywhere near that to do the exact same job (literally delivering packages).
A note for people thinking this is groundbreaking, it will be when it applies to the vastly larger competitor who pays hefty dividends each year to the federal budget.
Are you talking about Australia Post? If so, the numbers I’m finding are $27-$28/h part time gigs that include leave etc. Are you seeing different numbers or have I got the wrong company?
> The fact that they were both unpunished for finding loopholes in employment law
Why should companies or people be punished for finding and using loopholes? By definition, loopholes are perfectly legal. They may be against the spirit of the law, but they are still legal.
>Why should companies or people be punished for finding and using loopholes?
You answered it yourself. They're against the spirit of the law.
In any other circumstance where rules or obligations are enforced, exploiting loopholes is completely unacceptable behaviour.
(To clarify, I'm not arguing that the judge made the wrong decision in this particular case. Instead, I don't think this type of behaviour should be tolerated by the system at all.)
Same reason people breaking into a website using a bug should be punished. The bug shouldn’t be there, and if you find the bug and do a responsible disclosure that should be fine, but to ezploit the bug for your own gain is not ok.
It wouldn't be called a loophole if it was legitimate. Loophole implies there's some kind of something wrong with it. The fact that you can't quite point out what it is is what makes it a loophole.
Loopholes are legal in theory but not necessarily in practice. They could have just as easily ruled that the use of a private truck requires compensation on top of pay.
> However, this doesn't consider the fact that the drivers supply their own vehicle as well as out-of-pocket expenses for fuel, maintenance and general depreciation on the vehicle itself. When you take these additional costs into consideration, that initial ~$27 looks closer to an illegally low ~$20/hr.
Pardon my ignorance on AU tax law, but is there anything the contractors do with those costs? For instance, in the USA if you are a contractor you are able to 'write off' those costs from your taxes (to be clear here, in most/all cases you are only getting back the taxes you paid on the money you paid for the service, e.x. if you are taxed at 20% and you paid 100$ for repairs to your contractor vehicle, you get 20$ back on your taxes, not 100$)
> However, this doesn't consider the fact that the drivers supply their own vehicle as well as out-of-pocket expenses for fuel, maintenance and general depreciation on the vehicle itself.
You don’t think drivers consider that?
> The fact that they were both unpunished for finding loopholes in employment law
The "independent contractor" thing has always been a fairly transparent ploy at not calling workers "workers". The ruling sounds fairly logical. This is presumably the primary source [0] from a reliable location.
Although not reliable enough to get the title character encoding right.
This is not even limited to low-wage workers. A lot of GPs are "contractors" even though they work only for one employer with a provided office and set hours. The tax office has noticed in the last few years and indicated they're not happy.
The decision was made by a single commissioner - I'm not sure on process of this case but typically in the Industrial Relations Commission you can appeal to a full bench (perhaps also to a higher court). I think we'd all expect Amazon to do so.
There are more obvious benefits to making delivery drivers independent contractors. Namely, incentives. The more you deliver, the more you earn. If they are salaried, the system is likely to get bogged down.
Farmers have been paying seasonal farmhands by "piece rates" for centuries. It's quite popular for a huge number of newer industries like auto shops. The downside from the perspective of tech companies is that piece rate workers still have the rights and privileges of regular workers. Circumventing those rights and obligations is the actual reason for the "independent contractor" framework.
People underestimate how much of this is from gig companies not wanting to actually manage gig workers. In standard employment, you’re paid for every hour on the clock. Somebody needs to schedule the workers, track who is working, who’s out sick, who’s out for protected leave, deal with conflicts between employees, train managers, etc.
It is much easier to pay for results on a per delivery basis. Did you deliver the package? If yes, you’re paid $x. If your metrics look bad, they don’t renew your contract.
Hard disagree. My dad was a UPS driver for 30 years. He's the hardest worker I've ever known, often times during the Holidays leaving at 6am not to return until 9pm. They are unionized and payed well, as opposed to FedEx which are contractors. He was incentivized to work hard because he made a good salary and he saw how it benefitted his family to put in his all. Work hard, get treated with respect as a valued employee with a good wage and benefits, earn a good living for you and your family. What more incentive do you need? Why does being an independent contractor incentivize you above this level?
Edit: I conflated employee with salaried. I believe he was hourly because he got overtime, but he was still an employee.
The rules protecting people from being exploited as independant contractors should have an upper limit on pay. If your paying someone 200K to be an independant contractor they shouldnt be able to dispute it.
- Disincentivises driver productivity (since they get the same either way)
- Removes price signal to underperforming drivers to try another profession, thus misconfiguring the labour market (not in a massive way, but still inefficient)
Australian unemployment is incredibly low at the moment (I could be wrong, but I don't think it's been this low since the 1970's!). See here: https://i.imgur.com/nR8sJTd.png
This means employees can pick and choose who they work for.
When some professions pay more than others, that's an important signal to the labour force to consider swapping. It shouldn't be assumed to be meaningless or flippantly legislated away.
Why do people get paid higher wages? Why does a software engineer make more than a janitor? Is it hereditary? Is it merely luck? Is it privilege? It is something encoded in the law?
This seems like such a thoughtless, knee jerk response to the points being made. You must not think that replacing a worker with a robot reduces inequality? That /employing/ is the same as /exploiting/ iff the employee is poor?
I mean inequality is a poor metric anyway. Absolute communism reduces inequality to zero, but it doesn't improve overall outcomes.
> Incentivises Amazon to hasten roboticisation and automation
That incentive already exists.
> Increases delivery costs, which are passed on to consumers
Good
> Consequently consumers buy less
Good
> Disincentivises driver productivity (since they get the same either way)
Fine
> Removes price signal to underperforming drivers to try another profession, thus misconfiguring the labour market (not in a massive way, but still inefficient)
Upsides: enforces the rates which were agreed as the minimum reasonable payment for work, which allows to keep people out of poverty.
Why should we care and how tough Amazon has it, if ignoring that threshold really means "yeah, we're fine with some more poverty-while-working in the society"?
a) force companies to service a minimum liveable wage and maybe pay some higher prices (or see a corporate profit margin decrease)
b) pay more taxes to cover the long term social cost of a citizenry who can't afford food/healthcare/education/etc
What's the prospect of Amazon refusing to send packages to NSW now?
They've boycotted Australia before
I think they've just setup their airline to run out of Brisbane Airport just over the NSW border in QLD (they were hiring a Chief Pilot on our local wanted ads in 2020)
That's good. If the choices are paying workers below minimum wage, or not selling in Australia... I hope they just don't sell/deliver in Australia. We're not really losing much that way.
Or they could just do what everyone else is doing and use AusPost or curriers - also better than Amazon delivery taking over.
Considering their headquarters are in NSW and NSW has 8mil population, with over 64% in the Sydney region [0] which is roughly 1/3 of Australia's total population (25 mil), I think the answer is zero chance.
I'd guess that's not on the cards any more. Amazon has been building up in Australia over the last few years.
I think most Australians aren't yet aware how much better online shopping is everywhere else, and my bet is Amazon is getting ready to crush the local competition.
Amazon is not good online shopping though. It is an uncurated mess of drop-shippers with the low hanging fruit sold by Amazon them self. How is Amazon actually doing in places where they were not first movers?
It's not better. Screwing over suppliers, manipulating prices to get rid of smaller retailers, funneling people to choose a specific brand with bigger Amazon cut, listing endless variations of simple items from many "different" sellers, fake paid reviews, item listing takeovers, and many others issues make me choose direct sales over Amazon even where it's available.
No worries. I doubt many people would give a rats. A large company closing doors is always a bit sucky, but I don't think Australians have any dependancy on Amazon.
> Flex drivers with a sedan in New South Wales already earned more, on average, than the enforceable rate that would take effect from March 1, the spokesperson added.
Well I mean. Sure, set a minimum. But the labor market was working fine anyway.
Readit News
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/18/amazo...
Most importantly, they only need to pay ~$27/hr immediately.
This seems OK at first, as it is above the ~$25/hr minimum wage for casuals (note to non-Aussies: this figure includes a 25% "casual loading" to account for the fact that there is no sick leave, annual leave or guaranteed minimum hours).
However, this doesn't consider the fact that the drivers supply their own vehicle as well as out-of-pocket expenses for fuel, maintenance and general depreciation on the vehicle itself. When you take these additional costs into consideration, that initial ~$27 looks closer to an illegally low ~$20/hr.
The fact that they were both unpunished for finding loopholes in employment law as well as given a free pass to continue for another 3 years (despite literally being Amazon and therefore having the working capital to pay their drivers properly immediately) looks like it's a win for them.
A note for people thinking this is groundbreaking, it will be when it applies to the vastly larger competitor who pays hefty dividends each year to the federal budget.
Why should companies or people be punished for finding and using loopholes? By definition, loopholes are perfectly legal. They may be against the spirit of the law, but they are still legal.
You answered it yourself. They're against the spirit of the law.
In any other circumstance where rules or obligations are enforced, exploiting loopholes is completely unacceptable behaviour.
(To clarify, I'm not arguing that the judge made the wrong decision in this particular case. Instead, I don't think this type of behaviour should be tolerated by the system at all.)
The whole industry is screwed. And I'm a hypocrite because I order stuff online as well.
As long as you can bribe - oops sorry I meant donate to your local politician(s) to keep these 'perfectly legal' laws intact...
Deleted Comment
Pardon my ignorance on AU tax law, but is there anything the contractors do with those costs? For instance, in the USA if you are a contractor you are able to 'write off' those costs from your taxes (to be clear here, in most/all cases you are only getting back the taxes you paid on the money you paid for the service, e.x. if you are taxed at 20% and you paid 100$ for repairs to your contractor vehicle, you get 20$ back on your taxes, not 100$)
You don’t think drivers consider that?
> The fact that they were both unpunished for finding loopholes in employment law
Is it a loophole ? Close it
Although not reliable enough to get the title character encoding right.
[0] https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWI...
Isnt that how many software developers on contract work who have 1 year contracts which are usually renewed.
The decision was made by a single commissioner - I'm not sure on process of this case but typically in the Industrial Relations Commission you can appeal to a full bench (perhaps also to a higher court). I think we'd all expect Amazon to do so.
Paying someone minimum wage is the employer saying "I would pay you less but the stupid government won't allow it"
Treating someone in this position as an "independent contractor" is clearly an attempt to circumvent wage and other labour laws.
(And no, obviously this isn't the case for highly paid IT contractors with several customers )
I'm glad my government stopped that bullshit over a decade ago.
It is much easier to pay for results on a per delivery basis. Did you deliver the package? If yes, you’re paid $x. If your metrics look bad, they don’t renew your contract.
Edit: I conflated employee with salaried. I believe he was hourly because he got overtime, but he was still an employee.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
- Incentivises Amazon to hasten roboticisation and automation
- Increases delivery costs, which are passed on to consumers
- Consequently consumers buy less, hurting sellers
- Disincentivises driver productivity (since they get the same either way)
- Removes price signal to underperforming drivers to try another profession, thus misconfiguring the labour market (not in a massive way, but still inefficient)
What a terrible trade…
This means employees can pick and choose who they work for.
When some professions pay more than others, that's an important signal to the labour force to consider swapping. It shouldn't be assumed to be meaningless or flippantly legislated away.
I mean inequality is a poor metric anyway. Absolute communism reduces inequality to zero, but it doesn't improve overall outcomes.
That incentive already exists.
> Increases delivery costs, which are passed on to consumers
Good
> Consequently consumers buy less
Good
> Disincentivises driver productivity (since they get the same either way)
Fine
> Removes price signal to underperforming drivers to try another profession, thus misconfiguring the labour market (not in a massive way, but still inefficient)
Nonsense.
Why should we care and how tough Amazon has it, if ignoring that threshold really means "yeah, we're fine with some more poverty-while-working in the society"?
Correction: keep some people out of poverty.
Higher prices -> fewer purchases -> fewer parcels being delivered -> fewer drivers required.
Drivers who were once required but aren't any more aren't pushed away from poverty, but toward it.
a) force companies to service a minimum liveable wage and maybe pay some higher prices (or see a corporate profit margin decrease) b) pay more taxes to cover the long term social cost of a citizenry who can't afford food/healthcare/education/etc
c) Both of the above.
They've boycotted Australia before
I think they've just setup their airline to run out of Brisbane Airport just over the NSW border in QLD (they were hiring a Chief Pilot on our local wanted ads in 2020)
That's good. If the choices are paying workers below minimum wage, or not selling in Australia... I hope they just don't sell/deliver in Australia. We're not really losing much that way.
Or they could just do what everyone else is doing and use AusPost or curriers - also better than Amazon delivery taking over.
https://www.nsw.gov.au/about-nsw/key-facts-about-nsw#toc-pop...
I think most Australians aren't yet aware how much better online shopping is everywhere else, and my bet is Amazon is getting ready to crush the local competition.
I could see them excluding the area from the normal time guarantee, or from free shipping or something.
They send it via the normal postal service or you pay the extra for the higher priced service.
Deleted Comment
Amazon was not a party to the legal action, but is presumably affected by its ruling.
Well I mean. Sure, set a minimum. But the labor market was working fine anyway.