My Blog

Author: Jim Stanford

  • Budget 2019-20: Ooops, They Did It Again!

    So the 2019-20 Commonwealth budget, tabled Tuesday evening by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, featured another valiant prediction that fast wage growth is indeed still “just around the corner.” Despite a slowdown in wage growth in the last months of 2018, this budget simply replicates last year’s wage forecast – but delayed by one more year. Crucially, there is no discussion justifying why Australian workers might have confidence in this year’s forecast, when the last five so widely missed the mark (and always in the same direction).

    Our analysis of the 2019-20 Commonwealth budget focuses on the wages crisis facing Australian workers, and challenges the claim that cutting personal tax cuts can somehow compensate workers for the fact that their wages are not growing.

    Annual wage increases generate compounding benefits for workers and their families: since each year’s raise is applied against a larger and larger base. That cannot happen with tax cuts: to the contrary, their incremental effect can only shrink over time (as tax rates get lower and lower). Moreover, tax cuts always come with a significant cost: the loss of foregone public services, income supports and infrastructure that is the inevitable consequence of government’s shrinking revenue base.

    The tax cuts in this budget increase disposable incomes for workers by less than 1% (and by zero for the lowest-wage workers). In contrast, just one year of a normal wage increases delivers several times more benefits. And annual increases over three years (the term of the next government) delivers benefits dozens of times larger.

    Please read and share our full analysis of the 2019-20 budget below, which explains in detail how tax cuts cannot compensate for stagnant wages. You are also invited to view and share this short video summarising the argument (prepared with the help of our colleagues at the Australia Institute).

    The post Budget 2019-20: Ooops, They Did It Again! appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Jobs and a Living Wage

    The Australian policy journal Arena has published a wide-ranging article by Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford on the labour market issues at play in the current federal election.

    Stanford argues that the sense of “superiority” which typically accompanies economic debates during Australian election campaigns is muted in the current contest, because of the poor performance of the labour market in recent years. Unemployment and especially underemployment remain high; the quality of work has deteriorated; and wages have experienced their weakest performance since the end of the Second World War.

    Visit Arena’s website to read the full article.

    The post Jobs and a Living Wage appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • A Historic Opportunity to Change Direction

    In a broad overview of the current problems in Australia’s labour market, and the weaknesses of existing labour market policies, Stanford argues that the prospects are ripe for a fundamental shift in the emphasis of Australian industrial laws and labour standards.

    “A combination of political and macroeconomic factors has created a historic opportunity to turn away from the individualised, market-driven labour market policy that has prevailed since the 1980s, in favour of a more interventionist and egalitarian approach,” Stanford writes.

    He provides evidence on the dual failure of Australia’s job market: there is not enough work for those who want and need it, and the quality of work has deteriorated badly. Both of those problems have undermined wage growth in recent years. But longer-term structural changes in labour market and industrial policies are also to blame: “The deterioration in job quality and distributional outcomes is the long-term legacy of the post-1980s shift away from Australia’s earlier tradition of equality-seeking institutional structures and regulatory practice.”

    Stanford argues that deep political and economic changes are opening a once-in-a-generation possibility for a redirection of labour and workplace policies. The political shift reflects more than just the traditional “horse race” between leading parties, as an election approaches. Rather, they reveal growing public frustration over the evaporation of the “fair go” and the dimming prospects for inclusive prosperity. These political shifts have broken the traditional bipartisan endorsement of business-friendly labour policies which shaped Australia’s labour market over the last generation.

    At the same time, major macroeconomic challenges are reinforcing the need for a future Australian government to consider a different approach to supporting incomes and growth. The effects of restrictive labour policies on wages and inequality were moderated and disguised for some years by Australia’s vibrant investment and growth conditions. But now growth is slowing dramatically (due to the property price downturn, weak consumer finances, and weak business investment), and so the harsh effects of employer-oriented workplace policies are being felt undiluted by millions of working Australians.

    “There is growing sentiment among many researchers, industrial relations practitioners and worker advocates that Australia’s current industrial relations and labour policy regime (with its reliance on an eroding enterprise bargaining system, its severe constraints on union membership and activity and its network of fraying statutory protections) is in need of fundamental and multidimensional change,” Stanford concludes.

    Dr. Stanford’s review article, “A Turning Point for Labour Market Policy in Australia,” appears in Economic and Labour Relations Review, a peer-reviewed journal based at UNSW. Free public access to the article has been provided by the journal for a limited time: please visit this site to see the full article.

    Stanford’s review was also reported in a feature article by The Saturday Paper‘s Mike Seccombe on the important role that wages and workplace issues will play in the coming federal election campaign.

    The post A Historic Opportunity to Change Direction appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • 8 Things to Know About the Living Wage

    As the debate heats up, here’s a quick guide to 8 things you need to know about the living wage:

    #1. The debate is new. But the idea is old. And it was invented in Australia!

    In 1907 a conciliation and arbitration judge named H.B. Higgins decreed (in the famous “Sunshine Harvester” case) that wages should be sufficient to meet the “normal needs of an average employee, regarded as a human being in a civilized community.”  He actually calculated the wage that would be required for a full-time worker (then assumed male) to adequately support himself, his wife, and three children. At the time, the living wage was 7 shillings (or around 70 cents) per day.

    Of course, our idea of a standard “family” has changed a lot since then. We have fewer kids, and most women now work for pay outside of the home. But the idea of linking the minimum wage, to the actual costs associated with a minimum decent standard of living, is still valid.

    #2. Working for minimum wage is a recipe for poverty.

    From that humble beginning in 1907, Australia’s minimum wage evolved over time. It’s now adjusted annually by the Fair Work Commission. But the link to the concrete costs of running a household has been abandoned. These days the Commission looks at various factors (including profits, inflation, employment trends, and inequality) in setting the minimum. But it does not explicitly consider whether a minimum wage is sufficient to pay for basic living costs. And in reality, it is not.

    A full-time worker on the national minimum wage today ($18.93 per hour) makes $719 per week – and that assumes they work a full 38-hour schedule.  (In reality, most low-wage workers can’t get enough hours of work, on top of their low hourly rate.)  That’s only about 45% of average weekly earnings for all Australian workers.  And it’s certainly not enough to run a household, and pay for a decent standard of living. So Australia’s minimum wage is certainly well below a true “living wage.” Minimum wage workers, especially those with any dependents, are likely to live in poverty.

    #3: How do you measure the living wage?

    A common international threshold for defining low income is at 60% of the median earnings of full-time workers. (The median is the point exactly half-way between the top and the bottom of the income distribution; it differs from the average, which is unduly pulled up by a few very high-earners at the top.) Median earnings for full-time employees in Australia are presently close to $1500 per week. The minimum wage would thus have to increase to $23 per hour or more, to ensure that a full-time worker reached 60% of the median.

    Another method of calculating a living wage is to gather data on the actual costs of operating a basic household for a specific family type (often assumed to be two adults and two children, but other configurations are possible). In addition to the necessities of life (food, clothing, and shelter), a living wage must also allow for other expenses associated with full and healthy participation in society: such as internet, transportation, school supplies, a minimal level of entertainment expenses, insurance, and more. There are no luxuries in this budget – just a basic, decent standard of living consistent with modern social expectations.

    After adjusting for income taxes and transfers (like the family tax benefit and the child care subsidy), we then calculate the pre-tax income required to meet that basic standard of living. That in turn can be converted into an hourly living wage, by assuming a certain amount of paid work by the adults in the household (perhaps one working full-time and one working part-time).

    This “bottom-up” methodology has been utilised by living wage campaigns in several countries – but not yet Australia. The research confirms that current minimum wages are not compatible with healthy families and communities. The estimated living wage benchmark can then be used to lobby for increases in the legal minimum – or even to push individual employers to voluntarily pay a living wage.

    #4. For a generation, Australia’s minimum wage has lagged behind a living wage.

    In 1985 Australia’s minimum wage equaled 65% of median earnings (above that 60% threshold discussed above). It declined steadily relative to overall wages over the next two decades. Successive governments were focused on reducing wages, and fostering more dog-eat-dog competition in labour markets. (Last week Finance Minister Mathias Cormann actually admitted his government was trying to keep wages low as a matter of policy.)

    Over time, the minimum wage declined to a low of 52% of median wages in 2008. It bounced back slightly since then, helped along by a decent minimum wage hike (of 3.5%) last year. But the minimum wage still falls well short of any conception of a true living wage.

    #5. Isn’t Australia’s minimum wage higher than in other countries?

    It’s certainly higher than in America: where the minimum wage has been frozen at $7.25 for the last decade. It’s now equal to just 33% of median wages there – by far the lowest of any industrial country. No wonder many millions of full-time workers there still live in poverty. Not exactly a role model for Australia.

    In dollar terms, Australia’s minimum wage is higher than many countries. Some business lobbyists even complain Australia already has one of the “highest minimum wage in the world.”  But that claim is not true in any meaningful sense. Living costs are also very high in Australia compared to elsewhere. And international wage comparisons must consider deviations in exchange rates and other factors. It’s better to compare minimum wages across countries using the ratio of minimum to median wages discussed above.  By that standard, Australia’s minimum wage ratio is below several other countries, including France (the highest), Israel, Portugal, New Zealand, and even Turkey.

    #6: New Zealand is increasing its minimum wage – and fast.

    In fact, our neighbours across the ditch are quickly putting Australia’s minimum wage to shame. The minimum wage there (presently $16.50 per hour) is already higher as a share of median wages (above 60%) than in Australia. But the new Labour-Greens-NZ First government has been increasing it substantially, as one of its first policies. The minimum wage will grow 25% over the government’s four-year term – by which time it will equal approximately 68% of median wages.

    #7: Economists have changed their mind on minimum wages.

    Business leaders and market-friendly economists used to argue that increasing the minimum wage will inevitably cause unemployment. After all, they believed, if something is more expensive, people will buy less of it (the “buyers,” in this case, being employers). But this simplistic logic has been thoroughly discredited by a whole new generation of economic research on the effects of minimum wages on employment. Starting with a path-breaking study of minimum wages and fast food employment in New Jersey in the 1990s (by economists David Card and Alan Krueger), economists now realise the traditional supply-and-demand story is wrong.

    In fact, they have discovered several reasons why higher minimum wages do not have any significant negative impact on employment – and in some cases can actually lead to higher employment. These reasons include:

    • Improving labour force participation and retention among low-wage workers.
    • Reducing job turnover and the costs of searching for new jobs and new workers.
    • Offsetting the uncompetitive “monopsony” power of very large employers, which otherwise restrict their own hiring in order to help suppress wages.
    • Boosting consumer spending by putting more money in workers’ pockets – an effect which is especially beneficial for small business.

    Hundreds of studies of minimum wages in various countries have found little impact on employment in either direction. Even Australia’s Reserve Bank confirmed that recent increases in the minimum wage had no visible negative effect on employment.

    Further counter-evidence that higher minimum wages do not destroy jobs – and lower minimum wages do not create them – is provided by the experience of Australia’s recent cut in penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers on Sundays and holidays. Employers said this reduction in wages would lead to more jobs and longer hours. However, research by the Centre for Future Work showed those two sectors have been among the worst job-creators in Australia’s economy since penalty rates were cut. In fact, the retail sector eliminated 50,000 full-time jobs in the year under lower penalty rates.

    #8: A living wage would reduce poverty and boost incomes.

    In sum, higher minimum wages have little impact on employment one way or the other. Job-creation depends mostly on macroeconomic conditions and aggregate purchasing power. Higher minimum wages are proven to lift incomes for low-wage workers and reduce inequality. Committing to a true living wage in Australia, would ensure that people who work full-time, year-round are lifted out of poverty, and provide a badly-needed boost to Australia’s stagnant wages. It would be a powerful step in creating a fairer labour market.

    Median wage data from ABS catalogue 6306.0, “Employee Earnings and Hours.” Average wage data from ABS catalogue 6302.0, “Average Weekly Earnings.” Both refer to 2018.

    The post 8 Things to Know About the Living Wage appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Turning Gigs Into Decent Jobs (Victorian On-Demand Workforce)

    The government of Victoria is holding an important inquiry into the conditions and challenges of working in the ‘on-demand’ economy: a polite euphemism for gigs. The Centre for Future Work has made a submission.

    Our submission notes that digitally-mediated on-demand production typically incorporates five broad characteristics:

    • Work is performed on an on-demand or as-needed basis. Producers only work when their services are immediately required, and there is no guarantee of ongoing engagement.
    • Work is compensated on a piece-work basis. Producers are paid for each discrete task or unit of output, not for their time.
    • Producers are required to supply their own capital equipment. This typically includes providing the place where work occurs (their home, their car, etc.), as well as any tools, equipment and materials utilised directly in production. Because individual workers’ financial capacity to provide these up-front investments is limited, the capital requirements of platform work (at least that used directly by workers) are small.
    • The entity organising the work is distinct from the end-user or final consumer of the output, implying a triangular relationship between the producer, the end-user, and the intermediary.
    • Finally, some form of digital intermediation is utilised to commission the work, engage the producer, supervise it, deliver it to the final customer, and facilitate payment. In the modern economy, this last criteria is hardly exrtaordinary: virtually any job imaginable today relies on some form of digital task allocation or management.

    Despite the media hype which on-demand platforms have generated, the scale of employment engaged in on-demand work so far is rather modest. The number of people engaged in actual productive work organised through a digital platform is small (less than 1% of the labour force), and a large (likely majority) proportion of those rely on on-demand work for only a minority of their total income. Many people have signed up to perform work through one or more of these platforms, but do not stay with the platform long, and/or do not work many hours in the role.

    Another stereotype that needs to be challenged in considering on-demand work is the common claim that these employment practices are novel and innovative. Here it is crucial to distinguish between the technical innovations which these businesses utilise, and the changes in work organisation which those models also introduce. In fact, the major organisational features of digital platform work are not new at all. These practices have been used regularly in labour markets for hundreds of years; what is novel is the use of digital technologies for organising, supervising, and compensating work in that manner. And the growth of insecure or precarious work practices is not an essentially technology-driven phenomenon. Rather, the growing precarity of work, including in digitally-mediated on-demand jobs, reflects the evolution of social relationships and power balances, more than technological innovation in its own right. Appreciating the social and regulatory dimensions of technology and work organisation contributes to a more holistic and balanced understanding of the rise of on-demand work, its consequences, and its potential remedies.

    All the core features associated with on-demand work are long-standing. The practice of on-call or contingent labour – whereby workers are employed only when directly needed – has been common for hundreds of years. In an Australian context, a famous example is the former practice of dockworkers lining up each morning (for example, along Sydney’s ‘Hungry Mile’) in hopes of attaining employment that day; other examples are common in other sectors (including minerals, forestry, manufacturing, and agriculture).

    Home-based work, and other systems in which workers supply their own capital equipment, have also been common in many applications and contexts – from the ‘putting out’ system for manufacturing textile products and housewares in the early years of the industrial revolution, to the important role played by owner-operators in many modern industries (including transportation, resources, fisheries, and personal services).

    Piece-work compensation systems also have a long if uneven history. Employers have long aimed to tie compensation directly to output (as a way of shifting responsibility for managing work effort and productivity onto workers). Yet at the same time, the use of piece-work is constrained by numerous well-known problems, including difficulties in applying them in situations which require an emphasis on quality, not just quantity of output (like most service sector activities), and where work is performed jointly by teams or larger groups of workers.

    Finally, the triangular relationship that is evident in the on-demand economy between the worker/producer, the ultimate end-user of their labour (whether a business or a consumer), and an intermediary/‘middleman’ business is also very familiar from economic history. Past examples include labour hire services, “gang-masters,” and other forms of labour supply intermediation. Under this triangulated model of employment, it can be unclear who is the actual ‘employer’; this ambiguity opens the possibility for various negative practices and outcomes, which have been recognised for years in legislation, regulation, and jurisprudence. An example is Australia’s long-standing rules regarding ‘sham contracting’, and more recent initiatives to regulate labour hire businesses in Queensland and Victoria.

    In short, the core features of on-demand work are not novel; and claims that this way of organising work is ‘new’ are not valid. Rather, on-demand businesses reflect a resurgence of very old business practices, that date back hundreds of years. So ‘gig’ employers cannot be allowed to invoke claims of technological advancement, to justify work practices that are hundreds of years old – and in many cases violate community standards and traditional labour laws.

    The post Turning ‘Gigs’ Into Decent Jobs appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Job Creation Record Contradicts Tax-Cut Ideology

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics released its detailed biennial survey of employment arrangements this week (Catalogue 6306.0, “Employee Earnings and Hours“). Once every two years, it takes a deeper dive into various aspects of work life.

    Buried deep in the dozens of statistical tables was a very surprising breakdown of employment by size of workplace. It turns out, surprisingly, that Australia’s biggest workplaces (both private firms and public-sector agencies) have been the leaders of job-creation over the last two years.

    This runs against the common refrain that small business is the “engine of growth.” In fact, workplaces with less than 50 employees actually shed employees (14,000 in total) since 2016. Curiously, it was only smaller businesses that received the much-vaunted reduction in company tax (from 30 to 27.5 per cent), also beginning in 2016.

    Firm Size and Job Creation

    The tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses began to fall in 2016, first for the smallest firms (with turnover under $2 million), and then for firms with up to $50 million revenue. The tax is not tied to the number of employees in a business, but the vast majority of firms which have received the tax cut have less than 50 employees. Yet that is the group that has reduced its workforce since the tax cuts began to be phased in.

    In contrast, very large workplaces (with over 1000 employees) added 182,000 new jobs over the two years. Workplaces with between 100 and 1000 employees added 187,000. Very few of those workplaces would have received the reduction in company taxes (since most would exceed the $50 million annual revenue threshold).

    Workplaces between 50 and 100 employees created a net total of 103,000 new jobs between 2016 and 2018. Some of those firms would have received the tax cut, and some not — depending on the nature of the business and the amount of total turnover generated per employee.

    The data on job-creation by firm size is detailed on Table 13 of Data Cube 1, in the “Downloads” section of the ABS report. The data refers to waged employees, not including owner-managers of businesses.

    The share of small businesses (under 50 employees) in total employment declined by two percentage points — since they were reducing their workforces, while larger companies were growing. Small businesses (under 50 employees) now account for 34 per cent of all employees, compared to 36 percent in 2016.

    Why would large companies that didn’t get a tax cut create new jobs faster than companies which did benefit from the Coalition tax cuts? (The small business tax cuts are estimated to reduce federal revenues by $29.8 billion over the first decade.) Simple: there are dozens of different factors which determine whether a company is profitable or not, and whether it chooses to grow. Tax rates are just one of those variables. Others include:

    • Growth in consumer demand.
    • The company’s investments in product quality, innovation, and design.
    • Production costs.
    • Interest rates and financing costs.
    • Business confidence and expectations.
    • Management capacity.
    • International competition.

    Trends in all these other factors can easily overwhelm the marginal impact of lower tax rates. Small business sales in particular have been held back by stagnant wages among Australian workers. Even companies which experience higher profits due to lower tax rates may choose to simply accumulate those profits, or pay them out to shareholders in dividends and share buy-backs (instead of expanding payrolls). Empirical evidence shows this has been the dominant impact of U.S. business tax cuts implemented by Donald Trump.

    Changes in tax rates can even have offsetting effects which undermine business conditions and hence reduce job-creation: if the revenue lost to tax cuts results in corresponding reductions in government program spending or infrastructure investments (as seems likely), then overall business conditions might be weakened, not strengthened.

    The reduction in employment by the businesses which most benefited from the expensive business tax cuts over the past two years should lead policy-makers of all persuasions to reconsider the argument that this is an effective way to stimulate growth and job-creation. However, in October the government announced it wanted to accelerate the next stages of the small business tax cuts — taking the rate down to 25 per cent five years faster than originally planned.

    So far, the policy is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. Instead of reloading the gun to do it again even sooner, perhaps this is a good time to reconsider whether the strategy makes any sense at all.

    The post Job Creation Record Contradicts Tax-Cut Ideology appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The REAL Diary of an Uber Driver

    A version of this commentary originally appeared on the 10 Daily website.

    The REAL Diary of an Uber Driver

    by Jim Stanford

    ABC recently announced plans for a new 6-part television drama called “Diary of an Uber Driver.” It’s hard to imagine that an Uber driver’s actual life would make for riveting TV viewing. Here’s an illustrative account I have constructed, based on observations and real conversations with ride-share drivers:

    5:25 am. Shower and quick breakfast. Uber says I can “work when I want.” So why am I up at 5? Because that’s when there’s customers.

    6:10 am. Got one ride to the City, now deadheading back to suburb where the app says they need cars. 20 minutes of my time, plus petrol, down the tube.

    7:38 am. Been waiting 7 minutes for fare to come out of her house; I can charge her extra – but she’ll likely give me 2 stars out of 5 on the customer rating.

    8:12 am. Asshole office guy demands to get out at a traffic island. Totally illegal. If I refuse, I’ll lose stars.

    8:35 am. Driving obnoxious kid and dad to school. Kid waving a stuffed animal out the window, dangerous and illegal. If I tell the dad to stop it, I’ll lose more stars.

    9:20 am. Buy petrol. Price up another 3 cents. Apparently I operate an “independent” business, but I can’t raise my price when costs rise. In fact, I never even touch the money – it all goes through the app.

    9:28 am. Next door at Aldi’s buying bottled water, candies, and gum. $16. Customers expect the perks – and I gotta buy them, or lose my stars.

    10:35 am. Been waiting 15 minutes without a fare. Waits that long cut my effective hourly wage by a third. Think I’ll go home and go back to sleep.

    3:20 pm. Back on the app. Deadhead back to the City for rush hour.

    5:17 pm. Waiting 3 minutes in no-stopping zone for guy who said he’d be right there. Risking big ticket. Could move, would lose stars.

    6:20 pm. Cop eyes me at traffic light as I accept next fare on the app. I know it’s illegal, but it’s the only way to work it. If he fines me ($484 and 4 demerits), that’s 3 days’ net pay. I’m lucky.

    7:18 pm. Arrogant stockbroker gives me 2 stars, even though nothing went wrong. Why? Maybe it was my skin colour, not my service.

    8:25 pm. Drunken kids demand I go through McDonald’s. If I refuse, 2 stars for sure. Car now smells like French fries. And they spilled Coke on my carpet; another cleaning. They give me 2 stars anyway. I could give them 2 stars (as their rating), but it doesn’t matter. The customer is always right, and they’ll always get a driver. I might not find another job.

    9:38 pm. Another 15 minute wait for next fare. I suspect I’m being punished by the algorithm: it sends more jobs to preferred drivers.

    10:33 pm. More drunks, demanding to play Spotify through my sound system. Cranking it to the max. Stars at risk if I complain.

    1:18 am. Slow night, too many drivers out there. Getting very tired. Uber limits me to 18 hours work in any 24 (gosh); gotta sign off soon. I could always switch to Lyft and drive a few more hours. App sends rah-rah message that I could get to $250 for the day with a couple more fares.

    1:52 am. Deadhead home. App tells me I made $276, 15 hours on-line. That’s before petrol ($60 today), vehicle costs, data costs, and the damn gum. I’ll be lucky to keep half that. Didn’t make the minimum wage today… what else is new?

    This doesn’t make for feel-good viewing, by any definition. So what is ABC thinking?

    The mini-series is a spin-off from a blog and subsequent book by Ben Phillips, who began driving for Uber in Sydney after his own small business went belly-up. His writing describes many strange encounters with weird customers and other characters. The series will also draw in his own personal angst – including fears about becoming a father.

    In short, it’s like Taxi Driver for the gig-economy: a chronicle of mini-dramas compiled by a neurotic driver, ferrying colourful passengers around the big, lonely city. There will surely be entertainment value in some scenarios. But it’s hardly an accurate portrayal of the mind-numbing, exploitive reality of ride-share driving. And the whole concept raises questions that the broadcaster and its viewers should ponder carefully.

    For starters, why is the ABC naming a TV series after a corporation? Uber is the best-known ride-share company, sure, but there are many competitors. Moreover, conventional taxis are still a mainstay of urban transportation – and taxi drivers surely have as many interesting stories as Phillips. Taxis, however, are old-fashioned, while Uber is “cool.” ABC is riding the coattails of Uber’s brand by naming the whole show after it. Unfortunately, this also provides profile and endorsement to a troubled and controversial American corporation – one gearing up for a potential $120 billion (U.S.) stock offering.

    Let’s set that ethical issue aside. An even bigger concern is that the series will whitewash, even glamorise, a highly exploitative employment practice whose legitimacy and even legality is under siege in courtrooms and parliaments around the world. Uber has recently lost precedent-setting legal cases in France, Italy, the U.K., the U.S., and Canada. More challenges are underway, including in Australia.

    Uber has been avoiding the risks, costs, and responsibilities that come with directly employing drivers – inconveniences like minimum wages, workers’ compensation, paid holidays, and more. Drivers pay all vehicle costs (including depreciation, maintenance, tires, petrol, phone and insurance). Uber controls all payments (through the app), deducting booking fees and a fat 27.5% commission; the driver is stuck with all other costs (including GST), hoping there’s enough left at the end to buy groceries. They can be fired for inadequate consumer ratings (logged through the app’s 5-star system). Uber claims its drivers are “entrepreneurs,” not employees – but that fiction is crumbling in the face of myriad legal challenges.

    In practice, many Uber drivers make well under the minimum wage: my 2018 research indicated average pay (after vehicle expenses) of $14.62 per hour across 6 Australian cities; other surveys suggest even less. Other issues faced by drivers include dismissal without severance or recourse; traffic fines (including for operating the Uber app while driving); unlimited competition (there’s no cap on how many drivers can sign on); and deadening, dangerous hours. Little wonder 90% or more of Uber drivers quit within a year.

    It’s hard to believe this series will portray the ugly side of ride-share driving. Instead, working for Uber will come off as a humble but meaningful vocation: one where human interaction (rather than earning the minimum wage) is the main remuneration. At a moment when the exploitive practices of Uber and other gig employers are finally receiving critical attention around the world, this smells like corporate propaganda, not high-quality drama.

    The post The REAL Diary of an Uber Driver appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Australia’s Upside-Down Labour Market

    In this article reprinted from Western Teacher magazine (published by the State School Teachers’ Union of WA), our Director Jim Stanford tries to explain these contradictory trends.

    The article is based on a presentation to a recent SSTUWA delegates meeting in Perth.

    Cover

    Stanford provides a dual diagnosis for Australia’s labour market problems: an inadequate quantity of work, and the deteriorating quality of work. Egged on by government policies which have deliberately suppressed wages in so many workplaces, wage growth has fallen to postwar lows. This is now undermining Australia’s continued economic progress.

    In addition to diagnosing what’s gone wrong in Australia’s labour market, Stanford also explains the numerous economic benefits of stronger collective bargaining systems so that workers can receive a fairer share of the economic pie: stronger consumer spending, more stable financial conditions, stronger government revenues, and less inequality.

    To see the full issue of Western Teacher, or sign up for future editions, please visit the magazine’s website. We are grateful to Western Teacher for permission to reprint the article here!

    The post Australia’s Upside-Down Labour Market appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • New Video: Australia Needs a Pay Rise!

    ANAPR Logo

    The video highlights the problems of wage stagnation in Australia’s economy, and the need to “Change the Rules” – including proposals for sector-wide collective bargaining practices, especially important in low-wage sectors such as early child education. The video has great graphics and production values, and is accompanied by a useful infographic. Download short and long versions of the film, and the infographic, through the links below:

    Shorter version (2:45)

    Longer version (4:03)

    Infographic

    ANAPR Logo

    Many thanks to the team at United Voice and Flip for their talented work on this project!

    The post New Video: Australia Needs a Pay Rise! appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Year Past, and the Year to Come

    Workforce (a labour relations bulletin published by Thomson-Reuters) recently surveyed major IR figures in Australia on what they saw as the big issues in 2018, and what they expect as the major talking points for 2019. Jim Stanford, economist and Centre for Future Work director, was one of those surveyed, and here are his remarks.

    What was the most important issue or event in industrial relations this year?

    I would choose the union movement’s “Change the Rules” campaign, which really gathered focus and momentum as the year went on. Of course, unions have been dissatisfied with the state of labour laws, and the erosion of labour rights, for years. But this year, together with other community advocates, they have built a very effective and focused advocacy campaign that I think will have a major impact on labour policy in Australia. Examples of its potential include the big rallies held in Melbourne and other cities in October; the important role that the union movement’s independent door-knocking and phone-banking campaign played in the expanded majority won by the Daniel Andrews govt in Victoria; and the generally high profile of news and debates around the issues of wages and workplace fairness in the media and public commentary.

    The current atmosphere is very reminiscent of the “Your Rights at Work” initiative that the ACTU and its affiliates organised in 2006-07 – and that ended up making a significant difference in the 2007 election (when John Howard lost his seat).

    There is a qualitative difference in this incarnation of the union movement’s organising, however: while union activists obviously are hoping to influence the results of the next election, they are self-consciously and explicitly planning on a longer-run effort to shift public opinion regarding core issues of work and fairness.

    Their agenda of proposed reforms would take several years to implement: including lifting the minimum wage to a “living wage” level, modernising labour laws (so Uber drivers and other gig workers would be protected), changing the structure of enterprise bargaining to allow multi-firm and industry-wide bargaining, and more.

    And they are advancing that agenda as an independent campaign, not as an arm of the Labor party. That positions them well to continue to advance the debate after the election … whoever wins.

    By carefully focusing its energies, building a strong “boots on the ground” infrastructure in communities (including crucial marginal electorates), and building strong public support for the core values underpinning the campaign (tapping into continuing Australian faith in fairness), I think this movement will reshape both public opinion about work and wages, as well as Australia’s labour policy framework.

    What are you most/least looking forward to in 2019?

    There will be a Commonwealth election sometime during the first half of 2019 (perhaps sooner rather than later, if the current disarray in Canberra is any indication).

    I look forward to seeing labour issues – and in particular, the stagnation of wages in Australia, and the growing gap between Australia’s egalitarian tradition and the grim economic reality that most workers presently face – feature as one of the top three issues in the campaign. Most workers have had no increase in real wages over the past five years; millions have fallen behind (especially given escalating prices for housing and other essentials). The present govt knows that this festering economic frustration issue could be very damaging.

    There’s an opportunity in Australia right now to move the needle: imagine a modernised approach to labour policy: including labour standards that adapt to ongoing change in the economy (like gig jobs), a more ambitious crack-down on wage theft and other illegal practices, and a revitalisation of Australia’s commitment to a ‘fair go.’

    However, I am not looking forward to the rolling out of some pretty tired warnings and threats about how modernising labour laws and addressing inequality will somehow threaten Australia’s economic viability.

    We can expect many dire threats about how the proposals for reform will drag Australia back to the “bad old 1970s” – a time, interestingly, when GDP growth, job-creation, productivity growth, and real wage growth were all significantly superior to the current era.

    This rhetoric ignores the growing consensus among economists that more equality actually strengthens economic performance – by supporting consumer spending and aggregate demand, avoiding the economic, fiscal and social costs of exclusion and inequality, and boosting govt revenues.

    The doomsday prophecies we can expect to hear from the usual suspects should be understood as the last gasps of a vision of trickle-down economic policy that has lost its credibility, in Australia and around the world.

    The post The Year Past, and the Year to Come appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.