Unions vow to turn up heat on streets   


    The Australian
    October 20, 2017
   

ACTU secretary Sally McManus has vowed to “mobilise the whole union movement” against Streets ice cream as unions threaten to unleash a summer boycott campaign at popular beaches and sporting events unless the company abandons its bid to cut ­employee pay and conditions.

The Australian Manufacturing Work­ers Union unveiled a $250,000 campaign to fight Streets “on the beaches and at the MCG”, and to urge patrons at the Ashes, international cricket one-dayers, and the Wet’n’Wild theme park in Sydney to boycott Street products.

The union’s NSW secretary, Steve Murphy, said the campaign, which would also target major beaches on the eastern seaboard, would involve unionists distributing thousands of beach balls, beach towels, T-shirts and balloons customised with a “Streets-Free Summer” slogan.

“If Streets and (its owner) Unilever want to hit the nuclear ­option of terminating this agreement, workers will have no choice but to hit them where it hurts,’’ Mr Murphy said. “We are ready to let consumers know how this Australian icon is treating their workers. We’re going to fight Streets on the beaches and at the MCG. Streets and Unilever should withdraw their application before any more damage is done to their brand.”

Ms McManus backed the union threats, which will be activated in coming weeks if the company does not withdraw its Fair Work Commission application to terminate an agreement covering workers at the Minto plant in Sydney.

Unions said the termination would result in workers suffering a 46 per cent pay cut, a claim ­denied by Unilever.

“It is an abuse of their power and working people will remember every employer that cuts worker’s wages,’’ Ms McManus said.   

“We will mobilise the whole union movement to demonstrate to Streets that working people will not tolerate being blackmailed with massive pay cuts. Some parts of corporate Australia do not understand the power or meaning of solidarity, but they will understand their bottom line taking a hit.”   

But a Unilever general manager, Anthony Toovey, hit back last night.

“We think that Australians can decide for themselves what ice cream to eat,’’ he said.

“The ­reality is that every Gaytime, Magnum or Paddle Pop chosen this summer will help shore up the future of Streets manufacturing in Australia. We want to keep making Streets locally but the current situation is just not sustainable and needs to be ­addressed.

“If anyone has their finger on the nuclear button here is it the union and all a boycott will do is hurt workers and local manufacturing. Whatever the commission decides, we’ll continue to have discussions with our employees and the union to find a solution that works for everyone and makes the Streets factory more viable.”

The AMWU said the campaign would urge consumers to boycott all products sold under the Streets brand including Magnum, Golden Gaytime, Paddle Pop, Cornetto, Splice, Calippo, Bubble O Bill, Blue Ribbon and Vienetta.

Tiara Quick and Cheyne Pearson, from South Bondi, said the campaign could make them think again before buying a Streets ice cream.

“It might make us think twice, but the campaign’s not going to affect us too much,” Mr Pearson, 26, said yesterday. “We don’t buy them often. It sucks to hear this is happening, though. Companies are looking for more profits.”

Ms Quick, 21, said it was a familiar story. “It’s happening to loads of different places,” she said. “Anyway, more people eat healthier ice cream nowadays.’

Ice Cream manufacturers in China must be rubbing their hands in glee... ..

maybe the unions will work it out one day.. all this does is harm  the jobs they still have,, ..

the unions are ment to negotiate not threaten and intimidate,...

cods wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:24am:


So those who actually work in that industry should meekly surrender their pay and conditions in order to 'compete' with lower paid vassals of some offshore company, and thus benefit their owners/overlords and not themselves and the local economy?

What part of "take it or leave it" do you NOT understand as being intimidation?

What part of "sign or lose your job, your livelihood and your means of supporting your family" do you NOT understand as being  intimidation?

What the Hell is wrong with you? 

cods wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:24am:


But it is ok for the employer to threaten employees with a 50% pay cut ? That is A OK - just a bit of good fun to threaten and intimidate employees.

Employees should just bend over and take it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 7:38am:


I found it in practice to be very much the opposite. Management have all the cards they mostly employ Agreement negotiation consultants to tell them how to get what they want and tactically screw their workforce for everything they can.

All done in a system that supports them to do this. The employer is meant to negotiate but in reality that negotiation means doing the minimum required to give the impression of negotiation.

The monotonous boring BlackDay is describing the VERY SAME THUGGISH UNION tactics that FORCED Ford, Holden, and Toyota to LEAVE Australia. GetUp! must be very proud of the disciple BlackDay.

Can there be still any doubt that the Chinese are PAYING the corrupt unions to close down ALL industry in Australia so the work will go to China ?