Morrison cites "Importance of low-paid work", doesn't endorse pay rise in Annual Wage Review submission

The Morrison Government's submission to the Annual Wage Review refuses to recommend a pay-rise for the quarter of all workers who rely on the case for wage increases.

The submission - which includes a section titled "The importance of low-paid work" trots out a string of tired and disproven arguments to justify keeping wages low through the review process.

Rather than arguing that the work done by workers in disability care, cleaning, security, and dozens of other industries is critical to our society and that those workers deserve a pay rise, the Prime Minister instead mounts an argument in favour of keeping these essential jobs as low-paid as possible.

Quotes attributable to ACTU Secretary Sally McManus:

"Workers in disability care, cleaning, security and other sectors deserve a pay rise.

"The same people who were acknowledged as essential workers over the past two years now face a cost of living crisis and the Prime Minister has let them down again.

"The spending power of wages has already gone backwards over the past year and now the RBA is predicting inflation to rise to 4.5 per cent by June. This is a pay cut in real terms.

"For millions of workers, most of them women, the Annual Wage Review is their only opportunity for a wage rise, and it's incredibly disappointing that the Morrison Government is not joining unions in calling for a reasonable 5 per cent rise.

"After nearly a decade of record-low wage growth we now have rapidly increasing prices for basics like food and rent. Working people should be able to rely on their government to support a real wage rise this year. Instead, we have the same tired old arguments from a Morrison government that is out of touch with everyday Australians."

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.