Minimum wage rise delay causes sting for low-paid

Fair Work Commission President Iain Ross. Picture Gary Ramage

At first glance, the nation’s 2.2 million low-paid and award reliant workers have done better than usual from the Fair Work Commission’s annual minimum wage decision.

Rather than its usual practice of largely splitting the difference between competing employer and union claims, the $18.80 a week increase is 71 per cent of the ACTU’s claim and more than double the typically low-ball rise supported by employers.

But the sting for many workers, having endured years of low wages growth, is that the pay rises will be delayed by up to four months.

Workers covered by more than 20 awards in industries ranging from fitness, hair and beauty, hospitality, and clubs will not get the increase until ­November, after the commission again staggered the operative dates to assist Covid-stressed ­businesses.

ACTU secretary Sally McManus was particularly incensed that minimum wage and award-reliant workers in the retail sector will have to wait until September for the 2.5 per cent rise, calling the delay “pretty shameful”.

But retailers, while unhappy about the amount awarded, expressed “gratitude”, highlighting their belief that businesses remained vulnerable to lockdowns.

The prospect of more lockdowns was clearly on the mind of the Melbourne-based commission president Iain Ross, who cited them as one of the risks to the economic recovery.

His decision to also nominate the pace of the vaccine rollout as a risk was notable and seized on by the Coalition’s opponents. It’s hard to argue with his logic.

“A quick rollout of the vaccine increases the likelihood of an end to social distancing and density requirements, lockdowns and border restrictions, allowing businesses and employees to return to workplaces without uncertainty of the impact of future outbreaks to their business or employment,” he said.

While awarding the 3.5 per cent increase sought by the ACTU would risk adversely affecting job opportunities of low-skilled and young workers, Ross said the commission was not prepared to back ­employers and endorse a real wage cut.

“Such an outcome would mean that many award-reliant employees, particularly low-paid employees, would be less able to meet their needs. For some households such an outcome would lead to further disadvantage and may place them at greater risk of moving into poverty.”

That should not be acceptable to any government, let alone one enthusiastic about talking up our recovery from the pandemic.