Pinned straw:
It's difficult to defend this issue from a moral point of view even though Lovisa aren't the only ones guilty here - most of the retail sector have some dirty laundry which they don't want 'aired'.
And it would be a naive person who doesn't believe the solicitors for the class action aren't in the background whipping this matter up with the' best of the worst cases' in order to swell the book of affected past employees. The fact they have only grown the book from 500 (approx in Jan 2025) to circa 700 now says they have been lazy in their marketing efforts.
Lovisa will play the game - nothing to see here - engage top flight legal eagles - delay the issue for as long as possible - then make a settlement without admission of guilt on the steps of court. Kick the can way down the road as is possible. The company knows that news items disappear the minute it is moved off page one of the paper.
It's a pity long term management incentives aren't tied to such events which bring both disgrace & substantial reputational damage to the brand. Further, they should take heed of the tried and proven strategy of Peter Beattie, ex Premier of Qld, who won two elections by admitting he 'stuffed up'. Seems we Aussies will forgive, if admission appears genuine and compelling. Mind you, he didn't make an admission for the the 2018 Commonwealth Games f1asco, hence his new reputation as 'Teflon Pete'.
I sold my IRL shares today. A nice enough profit best kept in cash for the time being.
@occy Thanks for the link. I completely share your disgust—it sounds systemic and widespread. Unfortunately, this is behaviour I’ve observed in other retailers across Australia as well, although the article sounds as though Lovisa’s practices are some of the worst.
At Lovisa, the issue is compounded because staff are generally young women who are quickly promoted to managers, made to feel successful, and end up working much harder than they should for their position and in compromised conditions. The small store footprint exasperates the staff ratio and conditions. In that situation, it’s hard/impossible to push back—the only real option they see is to quit.
It makes me question the ethics of investing in all companies. Where do you draw the line?
It’s something I always come back to and struggle with, especially with Lovisa. Poor working conditions have been raised before and brushed aside by management when questioned by investors. Two more issues also bother me: the environmental damage from cheap fashion and plastic, and the unknown quality of Lovisa’s supply chains.
So again, where do you draw the line?
- Lynas does it’s dirty manufacturing overseas and strains water supplies when starting to operate in Australia. held
- Big pharma charges OTT prices in the US. held
I could make an unethical argument against every company I own.
I’m a Lovisa shareholder but I am now considering they’ve crossed my line. I’ve held the stock for many years and well in the money, but from an ethical viewpoint have always felt uneasy about the investment, perhaps it is time to move on. I would hate my nieces to subjected to such conditions.
Given the number of parties to the action,however, this does look like a case of "no smoke without fire".
I think this is unfortunately the right take, Mike.
This post below is three years old and certainly speaks to a poor culture, to be polite...
https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/12cbg6e/without_going_into_too_much_detail_whats_a/
There are quite a few threads on Reddit of ex-employees warning other young people not to work at Lovisa. While you always have to take this stuff with a grain of salt, there does indeed seem to be a pattern.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFemaleFashion/comments/u2upxz/please_dont_support_lovisa_if_you_can_avoid_it/
I have owned LOV in the past, but I would not own it again until they clean this up. Totally unacceptable to me to mistreat employees, especially young people who might be in their first ever job, and not pay them their entitlements.