Woolworths, one of Australia's largest supermarket chains, has introduced new performance measures that are leaving warehouse workers feeling increasingly pressured and dehumanized. Despite recording record profits in recent years, the company is intensifying its focus on "productivity" by imposing punitive measures on its warehouse staff.

The supermarket giant’s latest initiative, the “Coaching and Productivity Framework,” aims to drive efficiency by enforcing strict performance standards across its warehouses. Introduced earlier this year, the Framework impacts around 8,000 permanent employees across 15 locations, along with thousands of casual workers. Although certain aspects of the plan have been paused due to worker opposition, the cornerstone of the framework — the “engineered standards” — remains in full effect.

Under this system, Woolworths establishes benchmarks for how long specific tasks, such as picking items from the shelves, should take. Employees are expected to complete their tasks within a designated time to achieve a perfect efficiency score of 100 per cent. Anything less is considered failure, and workers who don’t meet these expectations are often subjected to counseling and, in the case of casuals, may face termination.

What makes the situation even more demoralizing is that the scores of each worker are posted at the end of every shift, visible for all to see. This public shaming tactic is designed to enforce compliance and pressure workers to work faster. In practice, this has resulted in a dangerous and stressful environment where productivity is prioritized over the well-being of employees.

Workers who spoke anonymously to The Guardian described the humiliation of being micromanaged under the new system. One worker recounted being ordered into a retraining program despite years of experience at the warehouse, adding that it was "humiliating" to be shadowed by a "coach" who monitored every move. Another worker described how a task involving two pallets of beer cartons, with an allotted time of 19 minutes, took them 45 minutes to complete. This resulted in a significant drop in their efficiency score, putting them at risk of disciplinary action. The pressure to meet unreasonable targets led some workers to express concerns about their physical and mental health. One worker shared their anxiety over losing their job because their efficiency score didn’t meet the company's high standards, noting how it caused sleepless nights.

In the context of a busy warehouse environment, everyday obstacles like aisle congestion, stock shortages, device malfunctions, and unexpected disruptions are common occurrences. Yet, these factors are not taken into account when setting the unrealistic performance targets. Workers are penalized regardless of such challenges, with bathroom breaks and minor delays under scrutiny. Workers reported being told to “stop all time-wasting and non-productive behaviors,” even if they were simply taking a necessary break.

These harsh tactics echo the methods first introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of "scientific management." His approach, which involved measuring each worker’s time and movements with stopwatches, treated workers like machines, focusing solely on maximizing productivity. Over a century later, these principles are still being applied by companies like Woolworths in an effort to extract more value from their workforce, even as the company enjoys record profits.

In 2023–2024, Woolworths reported a net profit after tax of $1.71 billion, yet the company has been imposing tougher standards on its workers. The push for higher productivity is part of a broader strategy to meet the demands of shareholders and remain competitive. Similar strategies are being used by global companies like Amazon, which has long employed invasive tracking systems and performance metrics to ensure maximum productivity from its warehouse workers.

The role of trade unions in this situation has been complex. The United Workers Union (UWU), which represents many of Woolworths’ warehouse staff, has been criticized for not doing enough to protect workers from the Framework. Dario Mujkic, the union’s national logistics director, condemned the system as “unfair, Orwellian, and discriminatory.” However, the union’s efforts to challenge the company’s practices have been seen as insufficient, especially given their track record of negotiating away workers’ rights in the name of maintaining "competitiveness."

The union has engaged in ongoing talks with Woolworths, but some workers are concerned that these discussions will only lead to small adjustments, not a complete overhaul of the framework. There is growing frustration over the role of unions in suppressing worker resistance, as evidenced by previous industrial actions, such as the battle over warehouse closures and automation.

The rise of automation, exemplified by Woolworths’ new automated distribution centers, threatens to further reduce the need for human workers, leaving those who remain in their jobs facing even more extreme productivity demands. This trend is reflective of broader global shifts, where workers are increasingly being asked to bear the brunt of economic pressures.

The situation at Woolworths highlights the need for broader, systemic change. Workers are not just fighting against an individual company’s policies but are also confronting the global forces of capitalism that prioritize profits over people. To truly improve conditions, workers must look beyond union negotiations and develop new forms of resistance, including rank-and-file committees led by workers themselves.

As Woolworths continues to ramp up its efforts to increase productivity, it is clear that the battle for better working conditions is far from over. Workers will need to unite and push back against these harsh practices, demanding a fairer, safer, and more humane workplace for all.