Comments on: Sack Spotless

By: Roger Awards open at The Standard 2.01

Roger Awards open at The Standard 2.01 — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:08:39 +0000

[...] winners have included Telecom, Progressive Enterprises and TranzRail, but I reckon Rio Tinto and Spotless Services would have to be odds-on favourites for this [...]

By: higherstandard

higherstandard — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:13:20 +0000

Agreed the the word buffoon comes to mind.

By: AncientGeek

AncientGeek — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:16:14 +0000

I haven’t been following this. But the herald article does not exactly inspire me with confidence in the management of Spotless.

I’ll have a look through the rest of this thread

By: higherstandard

higherstandard — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:30:04 +0000

By: Leftie

Leftie — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:36:41 +0000

Of course Monty’s solution of “voting with their feet” is ideal in such a low unemployment environment. Referring to the previous two decades, if the Tories take the reigns again “voting with their feet” won’t be an option.

By: K Douglas

K Douglas — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:44:43 +0000

Tane

It would be good if you could find out if the DHB’s have held their end of the deal?

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:05:00 +0000

Monty – They could have “voted with their feet” as you put it, but instead they took the far more effective route of bargaining collectively.

After a lengthy campaign and a nine day lockout which the Employment Court held was unlawful, they reached an agreement with Spotless and all the other employers in the sector on a new minimum rate of $14.25. Only Spotless hasn’t paid it out and Spotless was the only company to implement a lockout. If they went to the commercial cleaning sector they’d be paid between $12 – $12.55 because there is far less union organisation in that sector.

You’re right life is about choice, you’d be foolish to “vote with your feet” when you’ve got the opportunity to organise and bargain collectively to improve your terms and conditions of employment, something that won’t happen if you just give up and leave and get an equally poor rate (or worse) somewhere else.

Good to see broad agreement on this site that Spotless are in the wrong. Spotless is doing incredible damage to its business.

By: Matthew Pilott

Matthew Pilott — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:57:46 +0000

Monty, not that I would accuse you of lacking it or anything, but wouldn’t you say this is about the principle of the matter, given there is a broken agreement here?

Would you pack it in and resign with your tail between your legs and your balls in a doggy bag if your employer didn’t honour a contract, or would you raise hell over it?

Did you read the post or are you just proving that you’re a troll whose purpose is to mindlessly oppose everything on this site?

Tell you what, leave the mindless arguments to the experts, you’re boring, not funny http://youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

By: Monty

Monty — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:40:27 +0000

I hope they all vote with their feet and find new work with smaller cleaning companies who are desperate for good staff. Life is about choice – why don’t the cleaners etc just go elsewhere.

By: Policy Parrot

Policy Parrot — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:42:17 +0000

The state sector, SOE’s and CrOC’s should be looking hard at the employment practices of the companies they sub-contract to. It seems there is a case at least once a month gaining media attention in the State or State-owned sector.

If they are desperate to reduce costs, they should first look to reduce top-heavy management costs rather force sub-contractors to impose wrongs their staff. The subcontracting is just an efficient manner of management “washing their hands” of employment issues – when in fact these employees should be on the official state payroll.

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:37:40 +0000

I was always taught that the essential elements of a contract were offer and acceptance. On that basis, if Spotless made an offer to their workers via the union, and the workers accepyed it, even if ink never made it to paper, Spotless don’t have a legal leg to stand on, much less an ethical one. But then again, they’re Aussies – so what would you expect??!!

By: higherstandard

higherstandard — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:26:16 +0000

Not often I agree with you Tane but I’d back the workers 110% on this one.

By: Tane

Tane — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:36:10 +0000

Hey IV2, unfortunately it’s not that simple. Spotless agreed to the terms of settlement , and these were ratified, but the company has not yet signed the document. So even though it’s a done deal, legally it has no force, which is why they’ve been forced to strike. Conversely, if the document did have legal force then strike action would have been illegal.

Nevertheless, the deal has long been done and Spotless has had plenty of time to get its funding in order. So there are still good grounds for a rightie like you to support the workers on this one

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:26:36 +0000

Sheeeee-it! I agree with you Tane! Spotless have a legal and binding contract with their workers, based on offer and acceptance, so they should pay up. On this occasion, I am delighted to join you in saying “Up the workers!”