- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,742
- Reactions
- 13,776
The Coles supermarket chain has refunded millions of dollars to suppliers as part of a dispute resolution process.
Coles appointed former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett as an independent arbiter after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took the company to court over claims of unconscionable conduct towards its suppliers.
Mr Kennett recommended the supermarket suppliers, including farmers and food processors, be awarded financial settlements as part of that process.
In December last year, the Federal Court found Coles had demanded payments from suppliers to which it was not entitled by threatening harm to suppliers, and withheld money from suppliers it had no right to withhold.
The court ordered Coles to establish a formal process to provide for redress for over 200 affected suppliers.
In response, the supermarket appointed Mr Kennett to deal with suppliers seeking compensation and undertook a binding agreement to act on his recommendations.
Since then, Mr Kennett has visited up to 150 suppliers across the country hearing evidence and determining whether they were entitled to a refund from the supermarket.
"I have awarded, based on submissions made to me, evidence placed before me, a substantial amount of refunds to those I thought were entitled to them," Mr Kennett said.
While he would not be drawn on the exact figure, he said it came close to the $10 million Coles was ordered to pay following the ACCC Federal Court action.
"They've paid a fine of $10 million and certainly the refunds that I have ordered are approaching that figure again," Mr Kennett said.
"It's been a substantially expensive exercise for them, but I believe a great deal of good will come out of it for the suppliers and for Coles."
Mr Kennett had previously been critical of Coles, particularly for selling "fresh" bread that had been pre-baked in Ireland.
He expects to conclude his role by the end of June and said he was now confident that Coles had improved its dealings with suppliers.
"When I talk to suppliers now, many of them are saying there has been a noticeable change in the relationship between they and Coles," Mr Kennett said.
"In many cases it was always good, in some cases it was less than good. They are now saying that the relationship is a lot better than it was as little as five months ago.
"Coles has already made some changes, but this is a work in progress and they are undertaking a much bigger review.
"It takes a lot of time to turn a big ship around, but I'm hopeful by the end of this year, Coles will have in place a much better practice."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-11/kennett-coles-refunds-millions/6455990
Why is this the ugly face of capitalism, not the ugly face of a duopoly or, the ugly face of crooked supermarkets? I don't get it...
Capitalism isn't 'broken'. It's working all too well - and we're the worse for it
Exploitation is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. Our economic system is beyond salvage
Capitalism is not broken. It is working all too well, concentrating money in the hands of the few by exploiting the work of the many.
Runaway climate change, war, mass migration, widespread poverty and ever-increasing authoritarianism are the inevitable results of an economic system that rewards corporate actors for their absolute commitment to profit, regardless of the broader consequences.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...orking-all-too-well-and-were-the-worse-for-it
The fact that capital is being concentrated in the hands of a few, is simply the result of the majority refusing to play the game, not that the game is broken.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with capitalism, it’s just that the average joe is never taught about it.
The people that thrive in capitalist economies the most are those that make the most of the labour they can contribute into the economy, while also saving and deploying capital wisely.
No I think capitalism is broken because you have businesses like banks competing to make the most profits, not give the lowest prices to their customers.
Although it's hard to prove, I'd be very surprised if corporations like banks, petrol companies and Elco's don't collude on prices with the self serving aim of maximum profits rather than maximum customer service.
But the system isn’t “broken”, it is functioning extremely well, more products and services are circulating than ever before, and people are working more safely, with more benefits than ever.
Of course like any game, those who never had the rules explained, and just sit there mashing the key pad hoping to get ahead will on balance to less well, but they will still do better than they would have years ago.
I'm in favour of capitalism. Im also in favour of checks and balances, whether they be by regulation (gummint) or organisation (unions, guilds etc).If people are working safer with more benefits , it due to unions not business (unless you count unions as part of the capitalist system, but most "capitalists" would want to see unions out of the equation).
If people can't afford basic services like electricity, how can they afford to buy shares ? Unless they decide to go without children which denies the system future workers and consumers.
I'm in favour of capitalism.
That why it is a business and not a public serviceNo I think capitalism is broken because you have businesses like banks competing to make the most profits, not give the lowest prices to their customers.
.
If people are working safer with more benefits , it due to unions not business (unless you count unions as part of the capitalist system, but most "capitalists" would want to see unions out of the equation).
If people can't afford basic services like electricity, how can they afford to buy shares ? Unless they decide to go without children which denies the system future workers and consumers.
Generally so am I , as long as the benefits are spread as equally as possible throughout the population.
However, I have no problem with governments owning , wholly or partially, (say) mining companies as part of a sovereign wealth fund. Why take only 30% (if that) of the profits from our resources when the population can get a bigger contribution to their health and education services ?
Every single person out there (except perhaps welfare recipients or those will bad health etc), can reduce their spending by 10% and generate savings, it’s really not that hard.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?