The Fair Work Commission's decision to increase the minimum wage by 5.2 per cent from July 1 could not have come at a better time for south-west workers now guaranteed $812 a week or $21.38 an hour. While the percentage has been criticised by employers, the quantum is quite small. It is just $1 an hour more or an extra $40 a week.
For most, including the bosses arguing for any increase to be kept in the 2.5 to three per cent range, this is not much. It is the price of a pub meal or a good bottle of red. It wouldn't even buy a packet of cigarettes or a rump roast.
But it means a lot to those individuals and families on struggle street who will start receiving the money in two weeks or so. It is almost half a tank of fuel for a small car. It is the difference between leaving the heater off or being able to turn it on.
While the Prime Minister was slammed by his predecessor during the election for supporting a minimum wage increase that kept pace with inflation he was the one who was smiling on Wednesday.
There is no doubt his government's submission asking that the FWC "ensure that the real wages of low paid workers do not go backwards" had an influence on this outcome. So too did the ACTU's push for a 5.5 per cent increase in both the minimum wage and modern award minimum wages.
These were in stark contrast to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group. The ACCI thought a three per cent increase - a cut in real wages of more than two per cent - would have been "balanced and responsible".
The Australian Industry Group, in what appears to be a "let them eat cake" moment, argued that the 0.5 per cent increase in superannuation to take effect on July 1, and the increase in the low and middle-income tax offset, is already going to boost the coffers of the 2.4 million Australians, two-thirds of whom are women, on the lowest wage tier.
It fears the 5.2 per cent increase in the minimum wage and the 4.6 per cent increase to modern award minimum wages will do workers more harm than good.
"[The increases] will fuel inflation and lead to even higher interest rates; even more hardship for people with mortgages, personal loans or credit card debts; and add substantially to the risk of unemployment or underemployment - particularly for unskilled employees," AI Group chief executive Innes Wilcox said.
While both the AIG the ACCI are correct when they say the increases are an additional burden for businesses still recovering from two years of COVID, and which are also battling rising interest, energy and materiel costs, many industries have bounced back strongly with profit increases far in excess of the rate of inflation.
Some haven't though and south-west industries like tourism and hospitaliy are hurting. To them, the decision is a blow.
But Wednesday's wage ruling was very much in the spirit of the 1907 Harvester Decision. The Arbitration Court, taking into account the cost of living, ruled that the minimum or basic wage for an unskilled worker should be sufficient for him to house, clothe and feed a wife and three children.
That principle has not changed in the 115 years that have passed since then.
