A famous Australian who few Aussies know is twisting the arm of the board of Victoria’s Secret, one of the world’s most provocatively well-known businesses, to give him a seat to turnaround its flagging fortunes.

Few people have seen Brett Blundy and I’ve never met him in real life, though I have written about him and specifically about his unforgettable businesses.
These huge names of retail include Sanity Entertainment, Bras N Things, Accent and his latest exploding brand and business, Lovisa. Blundy even invested in Adairs and took it to a public listing in 2019.

Now aged around 65 and residing in Monaco, this serial entrepreneur began his retail journey in 1980 with a Pakenham record store called Disco Duck that failed. Later, however, he formed BB Capital, and the rest is retail history.

Lovisa (5Y)

On latest count, Lovisa is up 346% over the past five years and has around 1,031 stores in Australia, the US, Canada, the UK and Europe. He also has seven Jewells stores, which is an upmarket jewellery outlet. In contrast, look at what has happened to Victoria’s Secret over the past five years, where the share price has fallen from $US1,490 to $657, which is more than halve its value on the stock market.

Victoria's Secret (5Y)

Blundy now owns 13% of Victoria’s Secret and reports say he could swallow up 50% of the company! Apart from his second biggest holding in the company, he argues the company has been mismanaged and the firm’s chair Donna James has to go.

The AFR’s Carrie LaFrenz reports that Blundy has described James as an “an ‘over-tenured’ director with a ‘stale perspective’ that lacks objectivity”.

That said, the share price has started a bit of a recovery, which coincides with the company focussing on it 80 million Instagram followers and the promotion of its PINK brand to a younger audience.

Blundy has had push-back from the board he seeks to join but has publicly admonished its decisions and has insisted he’s not a short-term activist purely trying to make money before exiting the business.

In September he presented to the board, demanding a seat and outlining what he thought needed to be done. Recently, the board criticised Blundy for a “lack of interest in a constructive approach”, following his presentation and his demands to wave goodbye to the company’s chair.

A board often resists giving a seat to a barbarian at the gate who wants to improve the board! And this barbarian is an Aussie that many Americans would find hard to understand and accept.

That said, they should understand his retail success, which clearly has evaded this mob of directors for at least five years!

Warning: If an employer denies a work from home request, they could be called lawbreakers and face serious consequences.

Every white collar employer has been put on notice that if they deny employees their right to work from home they could be called lawbreakers and could face serious consequences. That’s the sensible conclusion given the recent Westpac case before the Fair Work Commission that has led to the Finance Sector Union putting our big banks, insurers and super funds on notice that rejecting work-from-home (WFH) requests could be dangerous.

In the minds of unions, the state of play between employers and their workers has changed substantially since Covid forced the WFH ‘workplace’ pivot.

FSU national assistant secretary Nicole McPherson was reported by the AFR’s David Marin-Guzman laying down the law to bank employers telling them: “…to get their own house in order … and stop acting like flexibility is a privilege”.

On the Westpac loss in the Fair Work Commission: “This ruling makes clear that employers can’t hide behind buzzwords like ‘collaboration’ or ‘culture’ to deny flexible work,” she said. “Westpac broke the law when it ignored its own workers’ rights and we’re putting every other bank on notice that they can’t do the same.”

So, what do white collar bosses need to know? Here are the sensible conclusions following the FWC ruling and the unions’ expectations:

1. Review all your current flexible WFH arrangements.
2. See if your WFH or your return to office (WFH) could leave you legally exposed.
3. Face-to-face employee collaboration doesn’t wash with the FWC if there are regular zoom or teams meetings with colleagues interstate.
4. WFH requests need to be responded to within 21 days or else the employer would be seen as being unreasonable.
5. Employees who have had WFH arrangements for quite a bit of time have evidence that it has not been a productivity issue for the employer.
6. If an employer sacrificed some productivity advantages for caring reasons for a good employee under stress from a parenting or caring role, then those employers better be able to prove the worker was less efficient when based at home.
7. Not all employees can demand a WFH arrangement as “under the Fair Work Act, flexible work appeals are limited to a cohort of workers such as those over 55, with a disability, parents of school-aged children and carers.”

That last point still covers a lot of employees and could make some employers careful about hiring over 55s and those workers with school age children, especially so if they live a long commuter distance from the workplace.

Westpac is considering appealing the decision that involved their RTO policy of 2 days in the office. The employee at the centre of this FWC case, had been on a WFH deal but wanted it extended when she had “moved house to be closer to a private school for her six-year-old twin daughters,” the AFR reported.

The bottom line is that an employer better be able to prove the employee working from home has a productivity problem or else they could be seen as a workplace lawbreaker. Would that make the employer a criminal? But the serious consequence of the tough stance of the FSU is that employers will need to be careful about who they employ and the WFH deal they say yes to. Will it make Artificial Intelligence options to hiring real people more of a sensible consideration?

While I’ve taken a few long shots in today’s Melbourne Cup, gambling that the next move in rates is up isn’t something I’m prepared to bet on.

With the expected interest rate cut a scratching today, economists who once all thought at least two rate reductions were on the cards before the easing cycle was over, now have some number crunchers tipping the next move will be up for the cash rate!

So, who’ll be right? While headline hopers for attention will categorically argue the next move is up, let me assure you there are plenty of smart economists who still think we’ll see another cut or two, but we’ll just have to be patient.

What’s my view? Well, the answer is simple — I don’t know because we’re living in unusual times and there are too many economic curve balls that make hitting forecasts out of the park harder than normal.

In late 1987 when the stock market crashed, I interviewed J.K. Galbraith, one of the world’s most respected economists, who served as the deputy director of the powerful Office of Price Administration during World War II, in charge of stabilizing all prices, wages and rents in the American economy, to combat the threat of inflation and hoarding during a time of shortages and rationing, a task that was successfully accomplished. (Wikipedia).

Galbraith also penned many best-selling books. One was called The Age of Uncertainty and was turned into a TV show that normal people watched!

When I asked Galbraith if the 22.6% crash of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in one day would create another 1930s-style Great Depression, he gave me an answer I’ve never forgotten.

He said: “Peter, there are two types of economists out there right now. There are those like me who will say they don’t know and then there are those poor types who don’t know they don’t know!”

The same applies to our economy right now. What we have seen since the last rate cut in August is a surprisingly bigger-than-expected rise in inflation that has tricked most of our well-known economists.

Back in August, Canstar reported: “Economists at the nation’s big four banks all predicted that the RBA would slash rates in August, after the release of June quarter CPI data showed that inflation was within the RBA’s target band for the second consecutive quarter.”

However, since that time, inflation has trended up and wasn’t helped by the end of the government rebates to lower the prices on our power bills.

And just how the rise in inflation has shocked economists, it’s entirely possible they could be surprised about the following:

1. A fall in the December quarter key inflation measures, following the September quarter jump in the annual inflation rate to 3.2% from 2.1% in June.
2. A bigger-than-expected rise in the unemployment rate that would follow the 4.5% reading in September, which was the highest rate since November 2021. Of course, this was in the shadows of the Covid lockdowns.
3. Consumer and business confidence could easily slump, especially following ‘no rate cut’ today and economists helping to create headlines such as the Daily Telegraph today that says: “FEARS RATES COULD BE ON THE RISE.”
4. A big spike in the Australian dollar would lower inflation and slow the economy down and this would help rate cuts show up. While I’m not expecting a big rise in the dollar, you can’t rule it out, as Donald Trump wants a lower greenback.
5. A stock market crash, which I’m definitely not expecting. But if it came out of the blue, interest rates would fall, not rise.

Rather that speculating on the worst-case scenario of an imminent rate rise, let’s see what the respected economics teams are saying:

Here’s the view from AMP: “Our pipeline inflation indicator which accounts for domestic and global factors is also still indicating a trend down. So, in our view, inflation can still track back down into the RBA’s target band (rather than running above it), but it will take longer to get there than we had expected.”

And now words from Westpac: “Expects rate cuts in May and August next year”.

And CBA’s comments: “In response to the strong signal this provides for underlying inflationary pressures, we no longer expect the RBA will cut the cash rate in February. Instead, we now see the RBA holding rates at 3.6% for an extended period.”

Not forgetting NAB: Tips a rate cut won’t happen before May next year.

And finally, The Money Market: Rates are seen bottoming at 3.35% by mid-2026 from the current 3.6%, implying just one remaining cut in the easing cycle.

When I’m confident about what’s going on in the economy, I make big calls. However, right now, the data drops aren’t easy to predict but I suspect we’ll see at least another rate cut but that will follow a period where the RBA plays a ‘wait-and-watch’ game.

One final point needs to be made. As the RBA was trying to slow the economy and beat inflation, the federal and state governments were spending. A lot of it was a hangover of the Covid lockdowns that needed big government spending to avoid a Great Depression.

That also brought the work-from-home trend, an escalation of mental health claims for worker’s compensation and a huge surge in spending on the NDIS. There were also tax cuts to help lower income Australians and also some vote-winning reasons behind some of these demand-increasing, inflation-creating policies.

And that’s why there are so many curve balls affecting economic statistics and the calibre of the calls by economists about what’s going on with inflation and other key data drops.

The bottom line is simple — don’t rule out another rate cut, but you’ll need to be patient. Right now, few respected economists expect a rate rise any time soon.

Donald Trump securing a trade truce with China’s Xi Jinping hasn’t seen Wall Street rejoicing. Why is this so?

While Donald Trump has secured a trade truce with China’s Xi Jinping, Wall Street hasn’t hailed the apparent agreement with a rejoicing rally. Maybe there is a “Peace for our time” reservation, which might mean global stock markets simply have to live with the threat of China and the US President’s potential ‘outside the square’ reactions.

For non-historians, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain used the above quote after meeting with Adolf Hitler in 1938, when the Munich Agreement was created. By the way, one day later, on the first of October, the German monster moved troops into the Sudetenland, which is now a part of the Czech Republic.

While you have to hope this trade truce lasts longer than the Munich Agreement, one thing has become clear, financial markets and investors have to accept that Washington and Beijing are always going to be a ‘must watch’ issue when trying to make money in stocks. “This is not at all over,” said Jed Ellerbroek, portfolio manager at Argent Capital Management on CNBC. “The Trump-related trade volatility is going to remain a feature of our capital markets as long as he’s president. That’s my assumption, and yesterday’s result affirms that.”

Before working out why Wall Street wasn’t cheering this trade truce, let’s examine what Trump and Xi agreed to, so here goes:

1. Beijing agreed to pause for one year the sweeping export controls on rare earths announced on October 9.2.
2. The US will cut tariffs on China related to fentanyl to 10% from 20%.
3. The overall US tariffs on Chinese exports have been cut to around 47%.
4. The threat of 100% tariffs on Chinese goods has been dropped.
5. The US will postpone a rule announced on September 29 that blacklisted majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies.
6. Both countries agreed to not charge fees on ships in each other’s ports for one year.
7. CNBC reported: “It is not entirely clear what China has agreed to in key areas such as agriculture and energy purchases from the U.S. and cooperation on fentanyl trafficking.”
8. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said China will buy 25 million metric tons of soybeans annually over the next three years.

Rare earths are being seen as a really important bargaining chip for China as Piper Sandler analyst, Andy Laperriere, told clients in a note: “Xi was ready for Trump in his second term and has a powerful weapon in rare earths.  China is getting the better of the US in these recent truce negotiations.”

According to our SPI Futures, our stock market is positive on talk of a trade truce so why isn’t Wall Street cheering?

Well, for starters, stock markets often ‘buy the rumour and sell the fact’. Second, the truce still leaves China with 47% tariffs. Third, while both parties can change their stance on the turn of a dime, it’s fair to argue that a bad meeting with Trump and Xi agreeing to precious little would have sent stocks down.

However, the reality is that the big players on Wall Street have had to digest two other negative developments that undoubtedly explain the lack of cheering for this trade truce.

On one hand, Fed boss Jerome Powell upset a lot of investors suggesting the expected December rate cut wasn’t a done deal. This actually led to the 30-year fixed rate home loan rising to 6.96% because money markets had already priced in this week’s rate cut and another in December. (By the way, note what home loan rates still are in the US, which can’t be great for future economic growth.)

The second reason US stocks are down is that big tech companies like Meta and Microsoft reported worse than expected. This has raised some short-term doubts about the market’s enthusiasm for these companies that are planning big outlays on AI.

Despite some of these negatives, Scott Wren, senior global market strategist at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute, gave the following advice via CNBC: “Investors are hearing a lot of headlines this week, but our suggestion is to look through the noise of the day and focus on the trends in place and those likely to offer attractive returns looking ahead.

“We continue to see pullbacks, should they occur, as buying opportunities and are targeting 7400–7600 for the S&P 500 by the end of next year.”

That’s a 10% plus call for US stocks! Let’s hope he’s on the money and the duration of this trade truce could be the big determinant of whether Wren is right with his call.

Here are the main suspects who killed a Cup Day rate cut: the RBA, Treasurer Chalmers, the Albanese government, Tony Burke and the Australian consumer.

As the country’s statistician has killed off any chance of an interest rate cut next Tuesday, the only hip pocket relief will come from backing the winner of the Cup. And we all know how easy that is!

But with the September quarter headline inflation rate coming in at a huge 1.3%, taking the annual rate to 3.2% (which is outside the Reserve Bank’s target for inflation of 2% to 3%), you have to know the central bank won’t cut. And if this inflation trend starts to pick up, they will cancel cuts until 2026 or even start rising again.

So, instead of boring you with why inflation is 0.2% higher than economists expected (they were tipping a 1.1% rise in the CPI), let’s see who’s to blame for this killing of a Cup Day cut. Try these usual suspects:

1. The RBA! It wants inflation well under 3%, while India, which is growing at 7%, has a 4% inflation target. Mind you, I think a 2-3% target is OK because the USA’s central bank aims for 2%. That said, it looks like the RBA needed to either raise rates more or delay the three cuts we’ve had this year.
2. Treasurer Chalmers! His tax cuts have kept spending higher and made it easier for consumers to pay higher prices.
3. The Albanese Government! Its climate change policies to decrease the use of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas has forced up power bills and has not only hurt consumer and business’s bottom lines but has kept inflation up and has meant rate cuts are off the table until now.
4. The Albanese Government again! Its high immigration policy has kept demand and the economy growing, which has kept inflation higher.
5. The Prime Minister’s best friend of the union movement, Tony Burke! Burke is the man touted as a possible replacement PM to Albo. He has powered many labour market reforms, which have kept wage rises happening. This has been good for workers but bad for containing inflation.
6. Consumers! Aussies have kept borrowing and spending, which has made it easier for price-setting businesses to keep raising prices. Many of these businesses had to raise prices to offset wage, power and inflation costs.
7. The RBA and Albanese Government again! They have a combined policy attitude to keep unemployment as low as possible but in the dismal science world of economies, it’s hard to lower inflation without a significant rise in unemployment.

To cut to the chase, we didn’t have a recession linked to the 13 rate rises because the PM and Treasurer Chalmers had an election to win. To be fair, they didn’t want a recession on their watch. While they gambled that the RBA could get inflation and interest rates down, the Government didn’t help with their tax cuts, green and labour market policies.

Take a look at New Zealand, where the policy makers played a more old-fashioned game of big interest rate rises that led to a recession. They’re now getting lots of rate cuts, but their jobless rate is a lot higher than us.

The Kiwi’s cash rate went to 5.5% while we went to 4.35%. NZ’s unemployment is 5.2% while our jobless rate is 4.5%. That’s a big difference in economic statistical terms.

It might mean we need 800,000 people unemployed from our 15 million strong workforce, which mean 125,000 Aussies would have to be sacked to slow the economy down to bring inflation down and give rate cuts a chance!

While these are blunt numbers, the fact is that while those with big mortgages have really copped hip pocket pain, those with jobs and no debt have not only enjoyed an economy without a recession, but they’ve also seen high interest rates for their savings and the stock market has boomed for six years, rising over 84%!

There’s an old saying: “endure the pain, enjoy the gain” Well, our economy has had less pain overall so we’re missing out on the rate cut gains.

However, while the Coalition might now have an issue to start agreeing on, the challenge will be for them to promise voters more pain for future gains. Labor’s strategy at the state and federal level has been give voters what they want i.e. tax cuts, electricity rebates, work from home support and better wages and conditions, while committing to net zero for environmental reasons. But we know the economy has shown the price for all of that is higher inflation and interest rates.

Economics can be a zero-sum game. For there to be winners, there has to be losers. That’s why it has been labelled the dismal science.

By the way, the Yanks got a rate cut overnight and expect another before the year’s out. This comes as President Trump meters out a lot of pain on public servants, who are in the second longest shutdown of 29 days. Meanwhile, businesses are copping the pain of tariffs and an immigration crackdown taking away cheap, illegal labour participants.

Dirty deeds might be done dirt cheap, but ASIC ‘don’t like this kind of behaviour’.

The founder and executive chairman of one of Australia’s best tech companies, Richard White, once repaired guitars for Aussie rock groups AC/DC and The Angels, but the music might have stopped on his rip-roaringly successful company-building career with government regulators raiding his offices and potentially accusing him of insider trading.

White eventually created a tech-driven logistics business called WiseTech (WTC) that’s the envy of the world. This saw his wealth grow to over $7 billion, despite company and relationship problems, that became public scandals.

The raid by the company regulator ASIC and the Australian Federal Police has taken over a billion dollars of White’s net worth. Along with his suffering shareholders, he has seen WTC’s share price tumble 15.88% or $13.50 to $71.52 yesterday.

That has wiped over $4 billion off the company’s market capitalisation (or value). Not only could this raid mean White and three executives could be accused of insider trading, but there could also criminal charges that could lead to a time in jail!

While small mistakes over share trading could end in a fine or rap over the knuckles, this is a serious allegation involving over $200 million worth of shares that were sold during the blackout period, when directors and major executives of a public company can’t buy or sell stocks. White is accused of doing exactly that, which is a huge mistake that the stock market hated. The Sydney Morning Herald says that when White was selling those shares “the average price over that period was $122, meaning White probably raised some $229 million from the sale of WiseTech shares”. This action would have driven share prices down and his fellow shareholders would have lost money. If it’s true, ASIC wouldn’t like this.

This chart shows how White’s public scandals and now this ASIC investigation have hurt WTC’s share price.

Until late last year, WTC’s share price looked like that of a great US tech business and was trading around $135. But it’s now $71. This fall from grace has seen that price slump close to 50%, which primarily has been driven by White’s less-than-conventional behaviour for a prominent corporate leader.

Respected business journalist Elizabeth Knight summed up the situation White faces: “Conventionally, ASIC’s general focus on share-trading has been insider trading, which can be criminal, although the regulator has not confirmed the nature of the share trading it is investigating. But WiseTech provided a flavour of what’s going on in its statement on Tuesday, saying the AFP and ASIC executed a search warrant requiring the production of documents regarding alleged trading in WiseTech shares by White and three WiseTech employees during the period from late 2024 to early 2025.”

Despite his unusual behaviour, the stock market has held a belief that the past public problems for White and WTC’s share price would subside, and the quality of this great business would prevail. However, if these alleged charges stick and this major shareholder, who still owns one-third of the shares on offer, goes to jail and/or is banned as a director, there’ll be a huge question mark over this company.

While at this stage the company hasn’t announced that White is being stood down (which would be the usual course of action), when it comes to this graduate of the rock n’ roll industry and lead player in the rockstar tech industry, he always seems like a rebel without a clause that explains his unconventional corporate behaviour!

A part of the near 16% sell-off yesterday for WTC’s share price was the fear of what the company does if Richard White is binned from his own company. While in the space of tech logistics he’s seen as a genius, in the turbulent seas of the corporate world, he can look like a fish out of water.

While some shareholders will be dumping WTC shares, others will see this low share price of $71.52 as a buying opportunity. For those, the gamble is that White survives this investigation and resumes his leadership of his company or the existing management team can navigate WTC without White’s involvement.

For such a great company, this makes a blue-chip business look like a real speculative play with both terrific upside and downside!

I’ve often said in my weekly webinar for Switzer Report subscribers that White is in more trouble than Indiana Jones in the Temple of Doom. But like the Harrison Ford character, he often escapes in the nick of time. White-versus- ASIC and the AFP is bound to be a gripping adventure that will leave WTC shareholders on the edge of their seats.

With property increasingly out of reach for many younger Australians, it means their superannuation balance will be their best asset to build over time. However, they need to be educated about super, and fast!

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) tells us that the average super balance is on the rise, but you’d have to be a cockeyed optimist to think the amount we’re talking about is good. And it’s ignorance of the super rules and a pathetic government education program that best explains why these balances are so low.

Sure, while I could argue that the average Australian doesn’t care enough about their super, a part of that is because no politician has ever made an incredible effort to make sure the population became mad keen on super.

And let me say, that while the government website moneysmart.gov.au is very good, the federal government doesn’t spend enough advertising how good it is. Yes, while it could be even more consumer friendly, it has good information that Australians need to be enticed to get exposed to superannuation education ASAP!

Here are the main points that sbs.com.au gleaned from the ASFA’s latest report that relied on the ATO’s look at 2023 figures:

1. Good super funds have returned 7.5% over the past 30 years.
2. That’s despite the GFC and Coronavirus crashes.
3. The average super balance was $172,834 in 2023.
4. It would be higher because workers now lose 12% to super. In 2023, it was 10.5%.
5. The average super balance at ages 60-64 is $355,451. This means such a retiree will need a part government pension to make ends meet in retirement.
6. Those aged over 75 were averaging $492,198, which says something about how super grows. And it comes when people care more about their super and make life changes to ensure it grows.
7. A 30-year-old today with $30,000 in super and earning a median wage will retire with $610,000.
8. At ages 60 to 64, men average about $396,000 in superannuation savings while women average around $313,000. This is explained by lower wages for women, divorces and time out of the workforce — often to have children.
9. The gap between men and women is closing with women now holding 43.6% of the total superannuation assets, up from 41.9% five years ago.
10. Australians on lower incomes will also see a change to their super tax offset, which will increase from $500 to $810 as the government expands the eligibility criteria from a $37,000 cut-off to $45,000.

On this latter super rule, if you earn less than $37,000, you can get up to $500 paid back into your super fund by the ATO to compensate for the 15% tax that all super contributions out of one’s pay are slugged with.

If your fund has a Tax File Number, the ATO will automatically refund this amount to your fund. The cut-off amount goes to $45,000 on 1 July 2027.
This is just one of the many rules that apply to super. Too many Australians have lower super balances than they should have because most of us don’t know the rules/laws that apply to super.

As a financial planner, while I have more experience at investing than my clients, sometimes the biggest help I’ve contributed to building their super is by knowing the super rules around contributing more to super, which has helped push their balances over $1 million and beyond.
While knowing the super rules helps build people’s nest eggs, government education and related marketing is pathetic. Name one government advertisement that encourages people to learn about their super.

All of us can probably recall industry super fund ads that basically say “give us your money because we are cheaper” but no ad that explains why becoming super-smart will be unbelievably rewarding can be recalled because none have been made by neglectful politicians from dumb governments.
Why dumb? Well, if more Aussies had bigger super balances, the outlays on pensions would be smaller.
Well, der!
Of course, while financial advisers know the rules, only 16% of Australians use an adviser. Close to 40% think the cost of financial advice is too high, which actually is false economy, especially when the average retiree ends work with $355,451.

The website ifa.com.au says 10 million Australians want advice but only 3.2 million actually are paying for it. The problem is said to be the cost. While most only want to pay around $1,164 for advice, 57% want to pay nothing!

The only way Australians will be smart enough to grow their super strongly will be via a government program to make us all super smarter. However, what’s the bet no significant politician ever takes this advice?

Unions are on the prowl for higher pay for workers under 21. Will the Federal Government sign up for this ‘feel good’ clever play for young people’s standard of living and their votes? How will this affect the economy?

Unions want higher pay for under-21 workers and it’s going to be interesting to see if the Federal Government signs up for this ‘feel good’ clever play for young people’s standard of living and their votes.

The core of Anthony Albanese’s success (and that of Labor party groups around the states) hasn’t just been the implosion of the Coalition as it grasps with issues such as climate change and immigration. And it’s not just because the Coalition has a leadership talent shortfall, at a time when Teal candidates have shown them what a lot of their former supporters want.

No, there has also been a cunning plan hatched up by Labor and the unions to give the majority of voters i.e. employees what they want. Important things to real people (who don’t employ anyone) are falling interest rates, tax cuts, low unemployment and niceties that other people pay for, such as supporting work-from-home and perceived action on climate change demands.

While I’d like to call this the Roman equivalent of “bread and circuses” to keep the masses happy, employers and small business owners might feel that Labor is feeding them to the lions! The facts are what Labor’s offering deeply affects people’s lives.

That’s why Labor owning these needs of ordinary voters is a clever political strategy that won’t be undermined by the Coalition finding a leader of Howard’s or Menzies’ legendary stature in the minds of voters.

No, only an economy going backwards creating higher jobless rates, higher inflation and interest rates, with a blowout budget deficit and public debt, will rattle voters and Labor’s grip on political power at a federal level.

The Daily Telegraph’s Elidah Sproul-Mellis reports that

young shelf-stackers and ‘fry cooks’ could be in for a significant pay rise if their union is successful in its push to uplift fast food, retail and pharmacy

wages for under-21s.”

The union in question is the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) and it has

asked the Fair Work Commission to abolish ‘junior’ wages for workers aged between 18 and 21, who can be paid less than the ‘adult’ award rate.

What is the current situation?

1. 18-year-olds are paid 70% of the award.
2. 19-year olds get 80%.
3. 20-year olds get 90%.

No change is wanted for under-18 employees, but at 18 the unions think employees are trained and are coping with a high cost of living, especially if they don’t live at home.

While The Telegraph looked at a 19-year old who supervised 18 staff but was paid only 80% of the award (which underlines how dumb some employers are), minority cases like this don’t build the case for increasing wages across the board for young workers, without regard to their actual competence and the employer’s ability to pay.

Sure, you can hit big supermarkets and international food franchises with higher wages for young staff. While it might hit profits and share prices, the impact on smaller businesses of a blanket increase in pay for under-21s needs to be assessed economically and fairly for those who have to find the money i.e. employers.

While the Government’s position on this play for young workers/voters isn’t clear, historically the Albanese Government, especially under former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Burke, simply rubber stamped whatever the unions wanted.

This is cleaver politics and good economics for young workers. Not until the economy goes pear shape and AI and robots start replacing workers, will Labor be challenged by a Coalition that currently looks totally out of form. This means small business employers need to brace for higher wages for young workers, and they need to become innovative or else they might find themselves going out of business!

The union case goes to the Fair Work Commission today.

This is no country for employers. Isn’t it time someone, somewhere in government who has even an inkling of what it’s like to be an employer stood up and made it clear that many employers, particularly at the smaller end of town, are cracking under the strain?

At a time when work-from-home (WFH) employees are being targeted as weak links in business cyber protection systems by Chinese hackers, a court decision has made it harder for employers to reject requests from employees to entrench their right to avoid the office.

Let’s look at the local threat to bosses — a crazy court decision granting an employee the right to work from home. Here are the main points:

1. A Westpac employee, who had a baby, was granted a temporary WFH arrangement.
2. Later Westpac introduced a two-day-a-week return to office policy.
3. However, the employee changed homes to be close to her child’s private school, but this was two hours from her Westpac office.
4. A court has ruled that Westpac can’t make this employee accept the two-day-a-week return to office policy. Why?
5. The fact the bank had allowed the employee to work from home successfully for years after maternity leave before requiring her to return to the office ignored that the employee had met performance metrics while being home-based!

The AFR’s David Marin-Guzman reported on the Finance Sector Unions reaction to the court decision and the warning from lawyers and employers.

“The Finance Sector Union pledged to use the Fair Work Commission ruling handed down on Monday to push employers to reconsider their refusals of WFH requests as they cite other similar cases,” he explained. “The decision, which went against Westpac’s two-day-a-week return to office policy, turned on the fact the bank had allowed Chandler to work from home successfully for years after maternity leave before requiring her to return to the office.”

And this is the logical conclusion from the Australian Industry Group workplace relations policy head Brent Ferguson: “The decision will undoubtedly make some employers wary about informally permitting WFH arrangements, given this could later be used against them in a dispute.”

And while this looks like a huge challenge for businesses with WFH employees, then there are Chinese hackers!

The AFR’s Michael Read reveals that “Chinese hackers are exploiting the rise of remote work by hijacking employees’ home routers and smart devices to breach corporate systems and create a sprawling network of infected gadgets.”

He added: “The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) on Tuesday warned that state-sponsored cyber actors posed a serious threat to the nation, as it revealed the average loss per cybercrime against big business more than tripled to $202,700 in 2024-25.”

The hackers target home devices connected to the internet, such as home routers, VPNs and firewalls to create botnets that support further targeting around the globe. The tactic gives the hackers access to other connected devices like smart appliances, phones, consoles and computers.

The ASD said 96% of the 120 attacks on edge devices, which help a business system talk to the WFH employees home system, in 2024-25 were successful.

The question is if the likes of Qantas can’t stop hackers accessing its customers’ records, what hope has a successful small or medium size business?

And doesn’t this mean that the WFH trend increases the likelihood of a cyber-attack for local businesses?

In an old-fashioned world, where rationality prevailed over emotional demands about things like work-life-balance for employees, the threat of hackers that could kill a business and the jobs it creates would have taken precedence.

And I ask this question: Who in any government worries and does something about the mental health of employers, who not only have to deal with new age demands from employees, but have to cope with excessive regulation, prowling tax offices (federally and states-wise) a slow-growing economy and now Chinse hackers!

Will someone in government give employers a break?