A blog on issues affecting Australia's newsagents, media and small business generally. More ...

Ethics

What is this WHAT DOCTORS DON’T TELL YOU title?

I noticed WHAT DOCTORS DON’T TELL YOU on the shelves of a shop this week. Having never seen the title before, I took a look. I found it hard to believe the veracity of claims I saw in a quick scan of articles. It feels like this title is targeted at people drawn to pseudo-medicine / quackery.

What is pitched as a launch issue is an Aussie version of a UK title that has been around for years. Checking online, I can find references as far back as 2012.

There is controversy about this magazine. Dr Margaret McCartney published comments  in October 2012 including:

Although medical journals carry advertisements for drugs, the ones in this magazine are an extraordinary shrine to non-evidenced based medicine. …

It is right to criticise medicine, but the same standards must be applied to all interventions, “alternative” or not. We now realise how important it is to ensure that fair evidence, free of bias, is used in making medical decisions. There is no point in substituting bad medicine for bad science, and it is not clear from this magazine where the hierarchies of evidence stand, and the limitations and uncertainties that arise in research are not consistently explained. The magazine’s liability statement—“the publishers cannot accept any responsibility for any damage or harm caused by any treatment, advice or information contained in this publication”—should perhaps be better printed on the cover, in an unmissable font.”

This article by Christine Oka, Research & Instruction, Northeastern University Libraries, Boston, MA, at the ProQuest blog from 2017, is fascinating:

Looking into the background of WDDTY I saw it was originally launched as an alternative medicine magazine in the UK, in 2012 with a number of cautionary reviews from medical and health publications, such as the British Medical Journal, Health News Review, and the Science and Skepticism section of The Guardian. WDDTY is published monthly and contains advertisements from the holistic and alternative medicine market. The WDDTY Editorial Panel is comprised of “some of the world’s leading pioneers in nutritional, environmental and alternative medicine.” But another source writes about The Editorial Panel, “Of those who can be found on the GMC List of Registered Medical Practitioners, one has been issued with a warning, one has relinquished his registration, and all of them advocate dubious interventions, some of which have been shown to do more harm than good.”

I checked out What doctors don’t tell you because it looked dodgy. Checking online, plenty think that.

While we are not censors, it is useful to know about titles available for our shelves, so our stocking decisions can be informed.

11 likes
Ethics

Beware calls to your business about Epay

Someone is calling retailers claiming to be from Epay or one of the POS software companies asking for access to a computer in the business.

This is a scam.

Do not provide access.

Instead, ask them for their name and their phone number and say you will call them back. Usually, they will hang up at this point.

4 likes
Ethics

Newsagency business values could be hit as News Corp moves on newspaper home delivery

Several newsagents contacted me about this News Corp. communication yesterday. Click here to see the letter.  Click here to see the FAQ.

This move by News Corp to take over newspaper home delivery from newsagents for what I am told is minimal compensation is along the lines of the company’s T2020 plan from 2013.

It appears that small business newsagents who paid goodwill for their distribution businesses have had, through this latest move, that goodwill  ripped from them by this large supplier.

Here is the letter, which has newsagents calculating losses in the thousands a week for some.

Dear Newsagent,

As you would be aware from our previous correspondence, News Corp Australia has undertaken a review of the distribution network in Metropolitan Sydney following a significant number of distribution newsagent territory handbacks.

An extensive consultation process was undertaken in early 2018, with over 150 respondents including industry bodies overwhelmingly supporting consolidation of distribution areas.

In September 2018 News Corp Australia issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Supply of Distribution Services inviting all distribution agents and those with logistics experience to participate.

The RFP outlined proposed key changes to the way the distribution of newspapers in Sydney would be conducted:

  • Consolidation of the existing territories into larger zones
  • A commitment to reduce or remove the administrative or duplicated aspects traditionally undertaken by distribution newsagents
  • To create consistent home delivery product presentation by flat wrapping subscriber copies directly off the press at our printing facility at Chullora.

Following an extensive RFP and evaluation process News Corp Australia has selected National DistributionServices (NDS), a joint venture between two of the country’s largest distribution newsagents for eight (8) of the proposed nine (9) zones.

Due to its unique set of delivery requirements we are still reviewing the best options available for the servicing of the Sydney CBD.

Timing of Changes:

It is planned that the transition to the new distributor will be conducted over several months commencing later this year. We expect to be completed by July 2020. The process will start with the migration of customer billing.

Transitional Support:

  • Contract Fulfilment Payment. In order to encourage outgoing distribution newsagents to support and assist in the transition to the new model, News Corp Australia will provide a payment to distribution newsagents in return for them making certain commitments to us. Details are included in a pack that they will receive shortly via post.
  • Case Manager. For affected agents News Corp Australia has appointed a case manager as a main point of contact who will be in touch soon to further outline these changes and answer any questions they may have.
  • Driver Register. NDS will also establish an online portal for existing distributors, drivers and contractors to register their interest to be considered to provide services to NDS. News Corp Australia is not part of this process or portal.

page1image3422638896page1image3422639152page1image3422639408

Further Information:

  • A pack will be mailed to you in the coming days outlining details of the changes including timing of the transition for you.
  • A full list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is attached.
  • Agents are also encouraged to attend Townhall meetings in the coming weeks where News Corp
  • Australia representatives will further outline these changes and address queries.
  • Any queries regarding the changes or how it impacts individual distributors or retailers should be directed to your dedicated case manager or contact details below:

Distributor enquiries:
Robert Rigby secondary_distribution@news.com.au

Regards

Michael Newell
Executive General Manager, Publishing Operations News Corp Australia

Media enquiries:
Liz Deegan corporateaffairs@news.com.au

This is extraordinary action by News Corp against small business newsagents.

If I was a distribution newsagent and had received this letter, I’d be contacting the ACCC to discuss the abuse of market power.  I’d also reach out to state based opportunities like the CTTT, VCAT and QCAT. I’d also be talking to my local politician as  this is a small business store with impact locally.

While News can argue that this has been their long foreshadowed plan, that does not make it fair.

Newspaper home delivery has been a local community service. For many newsagents, this is their primary asset. Compensation needs to be fair, it needs to be lawful, it needs to meet community standards.

While I got out of newspaper home delivery thirteen years ago, selling my decent size run, because I saw little upside, through my work with newsagents I know of many who will be affected by these moves by News.

15 likes
Ethics

If you think a high-interest unsecured loan is your only option…

I was talking with a small business retailer yesterday who had taken out an unsecured loan with one of the relatively new FinTech companies. The loan came at a repayment cost of $275.00 a day, fixed, for eighteen months, with an interest cost of 19%, charged upfront on the loan.

The retailer I was speaking with had encountered an unexpected challenge and needed to pause the loan for two weeks. The proposal put to them was to replace the old loan with a new loan at a higher cost. They felt it was unfair. Checking the terms an conditions, it is what they had agreed to.

No matter how tough things may seem, how bleak the future may look for your business, how much pressure is on you to settle debts, taking out a high interest unsecured loan through one of the many new FinTech companies is most likely not the answer. These loans come at a high interest cost, interest you cannot avoid regardless of whether you pay then loan off early. Negotiating a variation to the terms usually comes at a higher cost.

If you think this type of unsecured high-risk funding is the only option, pause and have someone else look at your situation. You need to determine if you are trading while insolvent.

For balance, I have seen people, reluctantly take out this type of loan and pay it off and keep trading. It was tough but they did it.

11 likes
Ethics

No, all employers are not the same

The reports of underpayment of wages at 7-Eleven, George Calombaris’ restaurants, Michael Hill Jewellers and more have put a spotlight on the treatment of employees. While this is reasonable, it has come with plenty of commentary that limps all employers into one basket of demons.

No, all employers are notthe same. Just as all employees are notthe same.

It frustrates me when I see unions on social media raging against employers, without qualification.  As an employer, I feel they are including me in their targeted attack, yet I know I have not misbehaved.

Employer groups are the same, targeting unions / employees in generalised attacks.

Neither approach is helpful.

Unions should stop lionising employers and employer groups should stop lionising workers.

There are laws and awards in Australia affording protection for employees. Our obligations as employers is to meet the obligations in law and the awards. Yes, it is complex and a challenging moving feast. However, it is what it is. Thanks to 7-Eleven, there is even more focus on this.

What 7-Eleven, George Calombaris’ restaurants, Michael Hill Jewellers and others have done is wrong. Their behaviour is not my behaviour, nor the behaviour of thousands of small business retail owners.

The unions need to recognise this, to qualify their comments and to work with the businesses that do good and meet their obligations at law. Unions and employer groups need to retreat from the class warfare of worker versus boss and boss versus worker.

Employer groups should call out this misbehaviour. They should speak up for the law. Silence is unhelpful.

No one wins from this nonsense.

There is another side to these issues too, relating to the connections between businesses in a channel or group.

The challenge for small business retailers in a specific channel or retailers trading under a banner group is that misbehaviour by one can put others in the channel or group under the spotlight, causing many hours to be lost to targeted audits. This is why people owning businesses in a defined channel or group have an obligation to others in the same situation.

There is no grey area here. The award is easily accessible. Understanding your obligations as an employer is straightforward. You can’t pass the buck. Do the work, understand your obligations and ensure that your decisions do not add risk to others in your business community.

14 likes
Ethics

Timely reminder on pay rates and entitlements

The news last week that the new CEO of Michael Hill jewellers identified a $25M shortfall in employee pay and entitlements is a timely reminder to all retail business owners…

  • Check employee classifications and ensure they match their tasks.
  • Check rates of pay for each employee to ensure they are correct.
  • Check entitlements for each employee and enquire they are correct.

Time checking these today could avoid penalties down the track. Government data matching makes catching mistakes and misbehaviour easier for the regulators.

The areas noted above are part of the provisions of the vulnerable workers legislation.

5 likes
Ethics

The ethics of sales reps and those they work for

Some sales representatives who call on newsagents and other indie retailers will do anything to get you to buy their products or service.

Retailers would know who I mean – they are the sales people who try and win business by lying about the competitors.  It’s their point of difference.

I am talking here about outright lies and not just tough competitive positioning.  It speaks volumes for their belief in their own product that they focus on the competitors more than themselves. Thankfully, business won this way often bites them sometime down the track.

If a supplier representative says anything to you about a competitor of theirs, ask them to prove it.  This will soon shut them up.  Better still, go to the company or person they are speaking about and let them know – it is what you would want if it was you they were talking about after all. Or even better still, write down their claims in front of them, with date and time and their name. Make it clear you will hold them to what they have said.

It is essential you have evidence down the track should you need to confront them or their boss about claims made.

6 likes
Ethics

Lottoland takes legal action against the federal government

Following the decision announced by ACMA yesterday, Lottoland has commenced proceedings against the federal government. This quote from Lottoland from the SMH story plays until current debate about freedom of expression and beliefs:

“We are fighting for freedom of choice.”

Talk about tugging at heartstrings. I hope people see this argument for what it is … nonsense. I think Lottoland is fighting to sell its gambling products. Punters are their customers, not a movement of people who feel aggrieved about their rights.

Here is a more complete statement from Lottoland at iGamingBusiness.com:

Lottoland is disputing the ACMA’s decision, and has launched legal proceedings.

“We have decided to challenge ACMA in the Supreme Court because we believe their view on jackpot betting is wrong,” Lottoland Australia chief executive Luke Brill said in a statement issued to iGamingBusiness.com.

“Lottoland’s jackpot betting products have been approved by the relevant licensing authorities, and we believe they are fully compliant with Australian law.

“We have worked hard to adapt to recent changes to the law, and we are committed to providing exciting new products that our customers love,” he explained. “By taking this stand against ACMA, we are fighting for the rights of hundreds of thousands of Australians who enjoy the occasional flutter. We are fighting for freedom of choice.”

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I suspect the issue has a long way to go yet given the stakes and the apparent resources  of the international Lottoland business.

Remember, Lottoland launched in Australia mocking newsagents, denigrating our channel, those who worked in it and even some who shopped with us.

1 likes
Ethics

New York Times: HOW RUPERT MURDOCH’S EMPIRE OF INFLUENCE REMADE THE WORLD

In the Aussie newsagency community there are many media watchers. For them, I commend this New York Times article: HOW RUPERT MURDOCH’S EMPIRE OF INFLUENCE REMADE THE WORLD as today’s recommended reading.

Be sure to read this too, from Michael West: Rupert Murdoch’s US empire siphons $4.5b from Australian business virtually tax-free.

 

There is also this from The Intercept. on Lachlan Murdoch, philosophy and white nationalism.

13 likes
Ethics

Man fails to get $201m Lottoland payout for lottery he might have won — had he been eligible

This story from the respected ABC is one newsagents who sell lotteries may want to share on their business social media pages.

A foreign citizen who was ineligible to enter an Australian lottery has failed in his bid to get Lottoland to pay a $700 million fine, as well as paying him $201 million on the basis that he would have won that amount — if his bet had been successful.

The Sri Lankan national was living in Perth at the time he placed three bets totalling $50 on April 18 and 19 last year.

Two of the bets were unsuccessful and the third was voided when Lottoland identified the man as being a national of a country on its excluded list.

Read the whole store to be fully familiar.

Here is the link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-24/man-fails-to-get-201m-lottoland-payout-lottery-might-have-won/10932720

4 likes
Ethics

Unfortunate news coverage for the newsagency shingle

The news coverage this week of the arrest of a newsagent in Sydney in relation to a crime syndicate is unfortunate for the channel. While I don’t have media monitor data, I suspect we have seen more mainstream media stories published with the newsagency keyword already this week than in all of 2018.

While people are smart enough to not connect the whole channel with the actions of one, I have heard from a couple of newsagents about comments being make across the counter already.

5 likes
Ethics

Why some people only make negative comments on this blog

I was asked last week why some people make negative comments here, especially on innocuous posts that others find useful. Here are some reasons I think some come here only to mock, criticise or denigrate:

  1. They failed in their newsagency business.
  2. They failed in their newsagency supply business.
  3. They could not raise the money to buy a newsagency
  4. They own a newsagency and hate it.
  5. They are a competitor of a newsagency.
  6. They are a supplier representative I have pissed off at some point.
  7. They get off trolling.
  8. They are a competitor.

Trolls are easy to pick. They do not use real names. Most have commented here under multiple names. None has ever taken up my offer to talk through their concerns or disagreements.

The majority of comments are from people who use their real name.

I welcome criticism / debate as this is essential to success. If I didn’t, I’d moderate comments, or have no comments at all.

13 likes
Ethics

Lottoland under spotlight following launch of financial system betting games

Lottoland have confronted the ban in Australia on their lottery betting from January 1, 2019, launching jackpot betting on financial market results.

This looks and feels like a move to get around the ban. Following a complaint, ASIC is considering an investigation, as reported by The Sydney Morning Herald. ASIC is one of several bodies looking at what Lottoland is doing.

The Herald understands the complaint, lodged on Friday, suggest Lottoland may be offering a financial service through the “jackpot betting” product.

Sources with knowledge of the complaint said it raised concerns that by using financial market data to create a lottery draw, Lottoland may be making a market for its own over-the-counter products.

Other industry sources told the Herald if Lottoland was using financial markets to simply generate a string of random numbers to determine a win, which would not be a financial service, this could instead leave it in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act.

However, Lottoland chief executive Luke Brill said “jackpot betting” was just the start of a series of new products the company expected to bring to the market this year.

I can’t see how this will end well for Lottoland given the 9investment by politicians already. However, the people at Lottoland have plenty i nested in Australia so it should have been anticipated by the politicians and those who wrote the legislation that they would look for ways around it.

What is interesting with this latest financial market product is that it is based on the financial markets, including the US. If you try and access Lottoland in the US you see this:

While the bigger challenges for newsagents are the migration of lottery purchases online as well as diversification in easy to access gambling products, Lottoland will draw more attention as it is an understood and unifying target for retailers, and because it launched in Australia with a campaign mocking newsagents.

It is unfortunate that stage based VANA and NANA newsagent associations backed Lottoland last year in the organisation’s fight to offer its lottery betting products.

ALNA has engaged on the latest moved by Lottoland. Read here.

11 likes
Ethics

Beware retail business consultants who have all the answers

There are some retail business consultants pitching their services and ideas to newsagents and others in our channel.

My advice is to beware, approach with caution, question the suggestions and advice from business consultants and self-proclaimed retail experts. Ask for evidence that supports their suggestions. Seek our references from indie retailers who have benefited from their advice. Ask the basis on which they make suggestions. Most of all, ensure they understand the channel and what is being confronted.

What newsagency businesses is experience is unique. It goes beyond ‘traditional’ disruption. There are multiple factors at plays, each impacting the other and the whole picture resulted is what I think is best describes as super-disruption.

I say super-disruption because we hear plenty about super-storms, super-cyclones and the like. They are bigger, more ferocious, more confronting versions of the singular.  That is what we are dealing with, disruption on a level not often seen elsewhere.

I have heard from consultants working with newsagents and read some of their suggestions. While their ideas are okay, they do not consider the bigger picture, they do not deal with more of what newsagents are confronting. This is why I say about consultants and advisors…

My advice is to beware, approach with caution, question the suggestions and advice from business consultants and self-proclaimed retail experts. Ask for evidence that supports their suggestions. Seek our references from indie retailers who have benefited from their advice. Ask the basis on which they make suggestions. Most of all, ensure they understand the channel and what is being confronted.

Some of the disruptors playing into each there in our channel include:

  1. The decline of print media.
  2. Migration of lottery purchases online.
  3. The decline in physical stationery use.
  4. Migration of the stationery shopper to online and big business.
  5. Migration of local school stationery business to online and big overseas businesses.
  6. Growth in corporate convenience businesses.
  7. Migration of transport ticket top-up to online.
  8. The closure of many newsagencies and the resulting impact on channel suppliers.

I don’t see these disruptors as problematic … if you engaged early and transitioned your business. The opportunities for change and growth in a ‘newsagency’ business remain considerable.

My key concern about the consultants and retail experts who are plying their trade in our channel is for those yet to transition, those keen for advice and guidance. Unless the consultants and retail-experts do thorough homework, I fear their advice will be of little real value.

Like anything, buyer beware.

8 likes
Ethics

Scam alert: gift cards including iTunes cards

Apple the ACCC and the ATO are seeking to alert retailers and shoppers about a scam involving gift cards and iTunes cards. This, from the Apple statement:

A string of scams are taking place asking people to make payments over the phone for things such as taxes, hospital bills, bail money, debt collection, and utility bills. The scams are committed using many methods, including gift cards. As the fraudsters are sometimes requesting codes from App Store & iTunes Gift Cards or Apple Store Gift Cards, we want to make sure our customers are aware of these scams.

Regardless of the reason for payment, the scam follows a certain formula: The victim receives a call instilling panic and urgency to make a payment by purchasing App Store & iTunes Gift Cards or Apple Store Gift Cards from the nearest retailer (convenience store, electronics retailer, etc.). After the cards have been purchased, the victim is asked to pay by sharing the code(s) on the back of the card with the caller over the phone.

This from the ACCC website:

The ACCC is warning people to be on the lookout for scammers who are trying to con their victims into paying for scams with Apple iTunes gift cards.

During 2017 to date, reports to the ACCC’s Scamwatch show 1236 people lost nearly $540,000 to scammers using gift cards as payments.

This is a growing trend: in the 2015-16 financial year losses were about $480,000.

“Scammers are increasingly getting their victims to pay with iTunes gift cards as they can quickly on-sell them and pocket the money,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.

This from the ATO website:

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is reminding Australians to stop and think before giving their personal details or hard-earned money to scammers this tax time.

Assistant Commissioner Kath Anderson said 48,084 scams were reported to the ATO between July and October last year.

“We have already seen a five-fold increase in scams from January to May this year and typically expect further increases during the tax time period,” Ms Anderson said.

As retailers, our roles are to ensure we are aware and to use our shopper communication platforms tom amplify warnings about scams, especially when they could connect with what we sell, such as gift cards.

Posting about this on your business Facebook page could be appreciated this time of the year.

12 likes
Ethics

News Corp’s Coles Little Shop Mini campaign is a mess and hurts for small business newsagents

What a messy weekend for for newsagents because of the News Corp. promoted Coles Little Shop Mini campaign. The company aggressively promoted the free offer one the front of the paper, the paper sold in newsagencies.

FREE TODAY. WITH THE PAPER. The pitch on the front page of the Sunday Herald Sun is clear. However, it was not free with the paper, not in newsagencies. No, we had to tell shoppers they needed to go to Coles to buy then paper to get the free Little Shop Mini. How ridiculous. News Corp. sold newsagents out.

This is another example of the giant News Corp. siding with its mate the giant Coles Corporation, to the detriment of small business newsagents.

Customers at newsagency counters were angry yesterday and Saturday. Plenty wanted to argue about it from what I am told. This disrupted the shop and impacted negatively on the business.

Yet, newsagents we’re innocent. Telling people to the fine print inside the newspaper did not help.

Here is the detail of the offer inside the Sunday Herald Sun yesterday. The fine print is really fine and that made people angrier. Just give me my F&*$ing little shop thing you moron one customer said to the newsagency sales assistant. No one should have to put up with this anger. And, we would not have to put up with it if News Corp. did a better job executing the campaign. They did not. They failed us. They failed small business. All to benefit a big business mate in Coles.

Take a look at the fine print from yesterday’s Sunday Herald Sun…

Burying this as they did, News Corp. setup trouble for newsagents and other non Coles retailers.

What a mess.

Those responsible at News Corp. owe newsagents an apology for the harm done, the hurt caused and the disrespect shown.

Now, a note to newsagency suppliers who also supply Coles – what has happened here plays into how newsagents feel about your engagement with the supermarket giant and other giants. For here we have a long-term newsagency supplier, one we launched distribution for in this country acting in ways that hurt our businesses and our brand in our local communities. How we feel about this plays into how we feel about your involvement with Coles and similar.

One newsagent told me yesterday that this campaign will bring forward their decision to cut newspapers from their shop as they are sick of the lack of control over the impact this mediocre margin product has on their business.

19 likes
Ethics

Government owned Australia Post outlets over reach, again, with Christmas catalogue

The latest catalogue distributed by Australia Post, a Christmas catalogue, sees, in my opinion, Australia Post overstep its obligations under the Act under which it operates. My concern here is their corporate stores, their government owned stores. These stores are the federal government operating a business, competing with small family run businesses.

Take a look at some of what is in this sixteen page catalogue.

How do I see this as an overstep? Australia Post is a protected brand, a monopoly. landlords give them preferential treatment, delivering a lower occupancy cost. They land people in their shops because of their monopoly over core products and services.

Here is why I think they are in breach of the act.

Section 14 of the Act requires Australia Post to provide a postal service first and foremost:

The principal function of Australia Post is to supply postal services within Australia and between Australia and places outside Australia.

Section 15 talks about permitted subsidiary functions:

A subsidiary function of Australia Post is to carry on, outside Australia, any business or activity relating to postal services.

Section 16 talks about other permitted functions:

Functions incidental businesses and activities

(1) The functions of Australia Post include the carrying on, within or outside Australia, of any business or activity that is incidental to: (a) the supplying of postal services under section 14; or (b) the carrying on of any business or activity under section 15.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the functions of Australia Post include the carrying on, within or outside Australia, of any business or activity that is capable of being conveniently carried on: (a) by the use of resources that are not immediately required in carrying out Australia Post’s principal or subsidiary function; or (b) in the course of: (i) supplying postal services under section 14; or (ii) carrying on any business or activity under section 15.

Successive federal governments  have permitted Australia Post to take millions of dollars in revenue from small businesses, from family businesses. The situation is getting worse. The behaviour of federal politicians in relation to Australia Post over-reach makes a mockery of the often repeated claims in support of small business.

The federal government deregulated newspaper and magazine distribution in 1999 saying that newsagents needed to get into the competitive world.  It is a pity that they have not applied the same competition rules to the business they own.

Back to the Christmas 2018 catalogue. Almost every page contains items shoppers can purchase from their local newsagency, pharmacy, toy shop, book shop and more … local family run businesses that need to market to attract shoppers for what they sell. Australia Post, on the other hand, lands people for low cost because of their monopoly and then sell what these other small businesses sell, as the add on, as the cream … dining revue from the independent small businesses.

It is time for Aussie politicians to walk the walk when it comes to small business retail.

Finally, to be clear, I have no concern with what LPOs do in that they are locally owned businesses. My concern here is the corporate stores.

19 likes
Australia Post

Shame on the people at News Corp’s The Australian for this poster

This newspaper promotional poster for The Australian demonstrates what News Corp does in this country, using its media outlets to interfere in our democracy, to knowing mis-state the situation for its own commercial benefit, through political support and patronage.

Shame on News Corp. Shame on everyone at the company involved deciding to proceed with the poster.

This poster is disgusting in my opinion.

At the time of producing this poster, the editorial team knew:

  1. A Liberal male parliamentarian used parliamentary privilege to trigger the the situation.
  2. You could argue the ‘crisis’ began at a social event, which it did. The person abused by the male Labor leader decided to not pursue the matter. Once sober, the Labor leader should have confessed and resigned.
  3. While the ALP leader quit last week, it was done quickly, not like the liberal leadership mess in Canberra that took weeks to resolve. By comparison, the replacement of the leader is hardly a ‘crisis’.
  4. The victim did not want the matter publicised, did not want to formally complain about the matter.
  5. The contents of the poster are false and misleading.

For News Corp. to blame the victim, who happened to be an ABC journalist, is appalling, dishonest.

I don’t understand why people buy this poisonous propaganda trash.

24 likes
Ethics

This could be why Tatts has asked its retailer franchisees for employees to provide details

I write this post a year ago. It is relevant today because Tatts has just contacted franchisees seeking access to information many small business owners would not consider its right to have…

Newsagents have been wondering why Tatts is expressing interest in employee arrangements in newsagency businesses. I have had plenty of questions and I know others have too.

This situation has come about because of the federal government passing vulnerable employee legislation following the 7-Eleven debacle. The Fair Work Ombudsman website sets the scene:

On 15 September 2017 the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017 took effect. It makes the following changes to the Fair Work Act 2009external-icon.png (the Fair Work Act):

  • increase penalties for ‘serious contraventions’ of workplace laws

  • make it clear that employers can’t ask for ‘cashback’ from employees or prospective employees

  • increase penalties for breaches of record-keeping and pay slip obligations

  • employers who don’t meet record-keeping or pay slip obligations and can’t give a reasonable excuse will need to disprove wage claims made in a court (this is also referred to as a reverse onus of proof)

  • strengthen our powers to collect evidence in investigations

  • introduce new penalties for giving us false or misleading information, or hindering or obstructing our investigations.

Read what the Fair Work Ombudsman website has to say about franchisors that have a significant amount of influence or control over the business affairs of the franchisee:

These changes apply from 27 October 2017.

Franchisors and holding companies (a company that has control over subsidiary companies) can be held responsible if their franchisee or subsidiary doesn’t follow workplace laws about minimum entitlements, the National Employment Standards, awards, sham contracting, record-keeping and pay slips.

This will apply to franchisors that have a significant amount of influence or control over the business affairs of the franchisee.

Franchisors or holding companies could be liable for breaches or underpayments if:

  • they knew (or could have reasonably known) that a franchisee or subsidiary wasn’t following workplace laws
  • they didn’t take reasonable steps to prevent it.

We are working with franchisors, their advocate and advisers and will have more information in our Help for franchises section when the changes take effect.

Tatts is acting because of an understanding of that term – significant amount of influence or control over the business affairs of the franchisee.

It’s not only Tatts caught in this. Any business that can be claimed to have a significant amount of influence or control over a downstream business is in the cross hairs.

I think there will be plenty more news and engagement about this in the channel river the next few months.

The challenge is the definition: significant amount of influence or control. It is not as clear as it could be. Some politicians say the Fair Work Ombudsman has overreached. We will have to see how that plays out.

There is plenty of advice online outlining the obligations for franchisors and organisations like Tatts outlets.

For a government that said it would reduce red tape for small business, this legislation is considerably adding to it.

14 likes
Ethics
Trending Articles

Fairfax changes approach to TV Guide, disrespects newsagents

Published on April 20, 2011

What do you think of the Powerball changes?

Published on February 16, 2018

IPS releases new magazine contracts

Published on June 21, 2011