sharetrader
Page 361 of 733 FirstFirst ... 261311351357358359360361362363364365371411461 ... LastLast
Results 3,601 to 3,610 of 7326
  1. #3601
    ShareTrader Legend bull....'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    10,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratkin View Post
    Every hotel took the wage subsidy and they nearly all laid off their staff afterwards, totally unfair to single out the warehouse.
    think they are singling out the warehouse because they took the subsidy then sacked 700 odd people shortly later ( retail in which the warehouse operates has not been affected that much unlike hotels which have due to tourism ) , which effectively means the subsidy was used for severance payments etc against the spirit of what the wage subsidy was meant for to preserve jobs.
    Last edited by bull....; 01-10-2020 at 05:58 AM.
    one step ahead of the herd

  2. #3602
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,739

    Default

    Teach them for pissing off the PM early on and saying they were 'essential' and were going to stay open when she told everybody but supermarkets to close their doors

    Nick is no PR man
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  3. #3603
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Teach them for pissing off the PM early on and saying they were 'essential' and were going to stay open when she told everybody but supermarkets to close their doors

    Nick is no PR man
    Were the Warehouse mislead into believing they were on the list? only to have the govt reverse it due to public outcry?

  4. #3604
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    I don't get what the 'moral' argument is with the wage subsidy and the Warehouse. No-one employed at the Warehouse on the day of lock down lost their job until after the wage subsidy ended, The wage subsidy, as I understood it, was paid in a lump sum. But it all had to be spent on wages eventually. So it wasn't pocketed by the Warehouse. And there were many lock down costs for which the Warehouse received no subsidy. There was never going to be a guarantee that all jobs subsidized would eventually be saved, Some say that these Warehouse redundancies were on course to be made before Covid-19. Are these people suggesting that it would have been better if the redundancies were made at the start of lock down and no wage subsidies were drawn?

    SNOOPY
    Well said Snoopy. The broad embracing structure of the wage subsidy was the issue. Basically if your revenue is down by x% for 4 weeks you're entitled to 12 weeks of subsidy.
    The way the subsidy was set up was systemically flawed. Pretty rich for the Govt to criticize companies that took the subsidy and were fully entitled to it based on the parameters the Govt itself established. The bungling of who was providing essential shopping facilities was poorly handled but then again the definition of same was always going to be a struggle for the Govt making up policy on the hoof in the middle of a crisis.

    Haven't the leaders got anything more constructive and forward looking to debate...
    Last edited by Beagle; 01-10-2020 at 09:08 AM.
    Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.
    Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine

  5. #3605
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

    Haven't the leaders got anything more constructive and forward looking to debate...
    They were answering questions put to them by Patrick Gower so they didnt have much choice ....

    Both parties accepted the rules were a bit lax I think, even Jacinda , of course this was Collins angle to criticise the govt implementation - not the wage subsidy itself.
    As I've said with RIO (and got some good feedback IRL with that one! ) you cant really expect directors, executives etc to be anything other than business-minded when it comes to situations like this.
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  6. #3606
    ... have power to make you great
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Far North
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    Wage subsidy debate got stoked by Mowbray. For that I call him a hypocrite, making massive profits while manufacturing in low wage China... stark contrast

  7. #3607
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12369634 Warehouse responds.
    "The wage subsidy it received was applied for and used on the basis that it was intended to - to pay employees in companies that experienced a greater than 30 per cent reduction in revenue in April....We were pleased that we could relieve the stress about income for our 11,000 team members at a time of uncertainty by topping up the wage subsidy to pay our team members 100 per cent of their normal pay," the spokeswomen said.

    Storm in a tea cup...
    Last edited by Beagle; 01-10-2020 at 07:36 PM.
    Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.
    Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine

  8. #3608
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,324

    Default

    The eligibility of the subsidy was clearly defined, and AFAIK WHS did abide by this.

    In terms of morality, the immoral act would have been to claim the subsidy in a high-trust environment but then not provide this to the employees, but WHS and all businesses that I personally know of kept employees on their payroll and did pay the subsidy to them, which after PAYE/ACC/administrative costs were added, meant these businesses were on the losing side.

    What would the PM have said if businesses elected not to take the subsidy (noting that this did not cover the full costs) and instead, made these employees redundant? Is that a more acceptable moral position? Or should the WHS have kept employees in paid employment for positions that were no longer viable? If the later is the benchmark, then perhaps all of our companies have been guilty of corporate immorality at some point during their lifecycles.

  9. #3609
    DFABPCLMB
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    all businesses that I personally know of kept employees on their payroll and did pay the subsidy to them, which after PAYE/ACC/administrative costs were added, meant these businesses were on the losing side.
    That is right - rent, power, leases and other overheads didn't stop so the losses were real in April. This was partly offset by the fact the subsidy paid for 12 weeks and the closure was maybe 5-6 weeks. Whether the business "made" or "lost" on the subsidy depended on the base rate of pay and the % paid during lockdown relative to the $585/week x 12. The businesses I work with took it upon themselves to reduce overhead and other costs in anticipation of a sharp reduction in business, which has not (yet) occurred.

    Consequently increased local demand with a lower overhead structure has lead to super profits in certain industries - not due to the subsidy, but due to sensible business practices, pent up demand from the lockdown and increased consumption in some industries given the lack of international travel available for Kiwis. Any "moral" argument is groundless given businesses were forced to close their doors with no relief on other costs, and a highly uncertain future. If the business met the criteria at the time then that is the end of the matter. Should they wish to repay the subsidy voluntarily then that is up to the business.

  10. #3610
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferg View Post
    That is right - rent, power, leases and other overheads didn't stop so the losses were real in April. This was partly offset by the fact the subsidy paid for 12 weeks and the closure was maybe 5-6 weeks. Whether the business "made" or "lost" on the subsidy depended on the base rate of pay and the % paid during lockdown relative to the $585/week x 12. The businesses I work with took it upon themselves to reduce overhead and other costs in anticipation of a sharp reduction in business, which has not (yet) occurred.

    Consequently increased local demand with a lower overhead structure has lead to super profits in certain industries - not due to the subsidy, but due to sensible business practices, pent up demand from the lockdown and increased consumption in some industries given the lack of international travel available for Kiwis. Any "moral" argument is groundless given businesses were forced to close their doors with no relief on other costs, and a highly uncertain future. If the business met the criteria at the time then that is the end of the matter. Should they wish to repay the subsidy voluntarily then that is up to the business.
    It was a wage subsidy. Not a subsidy for anything else.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •