My Blog

Author: Jim Stanford

  • Solid Foundations, Bright Future (NSW)

    New South Wales has one of the most prosperous and productive economies in Australia, with a diverse base of economic activity and strong labour market. However, years of austerity have hollowed out its public sector, creating one of the proportionally smallest state public sectors in the country in terms of both economic activity and employment.

    Despite the instrumental role the public sector played in navigating the state through the pandemic, weak wage growth and rising inflation have compounded the impacts of austerity, leading to significant reductions in public sector real wages. While the current government’s scrapping of the wage cap and implementation of public sector wage rises has undone some of this damage, most notably the October 2023 wage rises for public school teachers, more repair is needed.

    The NSW government has a strong fiscal position with which to manage these challenges. NSW maintains nearly the highest credit rating in the country and relies on revenue bases that are both diverse and stable. Additionally, there is considerable evidence that, if needed, several options are available to increase state government revenue. As the state economy weakens in response to high interest rates and declining real incomes, the state government has the responsibility to contribute to support the economy and broader society, through expansion of public services, repair of public sector wages, and support for the most vulnerable.

    The post Solid Foundations, Bright Future appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Submission: Digital Transformation of Workplaces

    Submission to inquiry on digital transformation and worker rights.

    Authors: Macdonald, Heap

    Download the full report.

  • Employee voice and new rights for workplace union delegates

    Some employers have actively placed barriers in the way of volunteer union delegates and paid officials. One study in the early 2000s found that 23% of delegates found management
    hostile, while 22% of delegates reported that management opposition to their role as a delegate had become more intense over the previous two years. Examples from various case studies, including court and industrial cases, illustrate some of the ways in which that minority of employers from workplaces with delegates expressed their hostility towards unionism and their opposition to delegates, including by placing barriers in the way of workplace union activists and delegates.

    The new regime of workplace delegates’ rights is very likely, overall, to increase the voice of employees, and thereby have positive consequences, over the long run, for pay and conditions, union membership, workplace cooperation, grievance resolution and productivity. However, the effects of new rights for paid union training leave depend very much on union responses, in particular on their subsequent reliance on classroom versus informal training and the ‘follow up’ of classroom education.

    The post Employee voice and new rights for workplace union delegates appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Budget 2024-25: Resists Austerity, Reduces Inflation

    Targeted cost of living measures will directly reduce inflation in some areas (like energy and rents), while helping working Australians deal with higher prices in others (including reworked State 3 tax cuts, and support for higher wages for ECEC and aged care workers). Unlike previous years, the budget is projecting real wage gains in coming years that are actually likely to materialise — however, the damage from recent real wage cuts will take several years to repair, and further support for strong wage growth will be required, from both fiscal policy and industrial laws. The budget also spelled out initial steps in the government’s Future Made in Australia strategy to build renewable energy and related manufacturing industries; these steps are welcome but need to be expanded, and accompanied by strong and consistent measures to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels.

    Our team of researchers at the Centre for Future Work has parsed the budget, focusing on its impacts on work, wages, and labour markets. Please read our full briefing report.

    The post Budget 2024-25: Resists Austerity, Reduces Inflation, Targets Wage Gains appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Irrelevance of Minimum Wages to Future Inflation (2024)

    The report, co-authored by Greg Jericho (Policy Director) and Jim Stanford (Director), finds that a minimum wage rise of between five and 10 per cent in the Fair Work’s Annual Wage Review, due in June, is needed to restore the real buying power of low-paid workers to pre-pandemic trends, but would not significantly affect headline inflation.

    Key findings of the report include:

    • Last year’s decision, which lifted the minimum wage by 8.65 per cent and other award wages by 5.75 per cent, offset some but not all of the effects of recent inflation on real earnings for low-wage workers.
    • At the same time, inflation fell by 3 full percentage points.
    • There has been no significant correlation between rises in the minimum wage and inflation since 1997.
    • Raising wages by 5 to 10 per cent this year would offset recent inflation and restore the pre-pandemic trend in real wages for award-covered workers.
    • Even if fully passed on by employers, higher award wages would have no significant impact on economy-wide prices.
    • A 10 per cent increase in award wages could be fully offset, with no impact on prices at all, by just a 2 per cent reduction in corporate profits – still leaving profits far above historical levels.

    “Australia’s lowest paid workers have been hardest hit by inflation since Covid. There is a moral imperative to restore quality of life for these Australians and this analysis shows that there is no credible economic reason to deny them,” Jericho said.

    “It’s vital the Fair Work Commission ensure that the minimum wage not only keeps up with inflation, but also grows gradually in real terms – as was the trend before the pandemic.

    The post The Irrelevance of Minimum Wages to Future Inflation appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • RBA rate rises are hurting workers most

    How RBA interest rate rises are falling hardest on working Australians.

  • Mid-Term Review of Albanese Government’s Labour Policy Reforms

    That assessment is contained in an article contained in a new special issue of the Journal of Australian Political Economy (JAPE), evaluating the government’s record on a range of issues halfway through its term. The special issue of JAPE was published on 18 December, and was edited by Prof Emeritus Frank Stilwell at the University of Sydney.

    The article reviewing the government’s labour policies was co-authored by several staff at the Centre for Future Work, including Greg Jericho, Charlie Joyce, Fiona Macdonald, David Peetz, and Jim Stanford. It considers the impacts of several government initiatives, including:

    • Successive rounds of reforms to the Fair Work Act (including last year’s Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill, and this year’s Closing Loopholes legislation).
    • Several reforms to address gender inequality in workplaces.
    • A more ambitious approach to raising the national minimum wage.
    • Longer-run proposals for attaining full employment, described in the government’s recent White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities.

    The authors judge that the government’s labour reforms have achieved an “incremental but significant rebalancing of industrial relations.” They pointed to the acceleration of wage growth in Australia in the last year as evidence that workers have won important bargaining power. Wages are now growing at 4% year-over-year, according to the latest WPI data from the ABS — twice as fast as they did on average over the previous decade, which was marked by the slowest sustained wage growth in the postwar era.

    The authors caution, however, that additional reforms are necessary to reverse the erosion of collective bargaining coverage and union membership, and ensure that workers have the bargaining power to improve wages, job security and working conditions.

    “On the whole, the Albanese government has made cautious but useful progress on industrial relations and labour issues during its first year. However, it must be acknowledged that the overall labour relations regime in Australia remains heavily skewed in favour of employers,” the authors concluded.

    Please see the full article, “Labour Policy,” by Greg Jericho, Charlie Joyce, Fiona Macdonald, David Peetz and Jim Stanford, at the link below. Fiona Macdonald also authored a second article in the special issue, dealing with the government’s reforms to care policies. To see the full collection of articles in the special issue, visit the JAPE website.

    The post Mid-Term Review of Albanese Government’s Labour Policy Reforms appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse

    One of the chief purposes of government payments and taxes is to redistribute income, which is why tax rates are higher on taxpayers with higher incomes and payments tend to get directed to people on lower incomes.

    Australia’s tax rates range from a low of zero cents in the dollar to a high of 45 cents, and payments including JobSeeker, the age pension, and child benefits which are limited to recipients whose income is below certain thresholds.

    In this way, every nation’s tax and transfer system cuts inequality, some more than others.

    Which is why I was surprised when I used the latest Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data to calculate how much.

    The OECD measures inequality using what’s known as a gini coefficient. This is a number on a scale between zero and 1 where zero represents complete equality (everyone receives the same income) and 1 represents complete inequality (one person has all the income).

    The higher the number, the higher the higher the inequality.

    Australia is far from the most equal of OECD nations – it is 21st out of the 37 countries for which the OECD collects data, but what really interested me is what Australia’s tax and transfer system does to equalise things.

    And the answer is: surprisingly little compared to other OECD countries.

    Australia’s system does little to temper inequality

    The graph below displays the number of points by which each country’s tax and transfer system reduces its gini coefficient. The ranking indicates the extent to which the system equalises incomes.

    The OECD country whose system most strongly redistributes incomes is Finland, whose tax and transfer rules cut its gini coefficient by 0.25 points.

    The country with the weakest redistribution of incomes is Mexico which only cuts inequality by 0.02 points.

    Australia is the 8th weakest, cutting inequality by only 0.12 points.

    Apart from Mexico, among OECD members only Chile, Costa Rica, Korea, Switzerland, Türkiye and Iceland do a worse job of redistributing incomes.

    What is really odd is that, before redistribution, Australia’s income distribution is pretty good compared to other OECD countries – the tenth best.

    It’s not that Australia’s systems don’t reduce inequality, it’s that other country’s systems do it more.

    Of the OECD members who do less than Australia, four are emerging economies: Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Türkiye. Like most developing countries, they have low taxes, weak social protections and poor tax-gathering systems.

    Indeed, in Chile and Mexico, taxes and transfers do almost nothing to moderate extreme inequality.

    The other three countries ranked below Australia – Iceland, Switzerland, and South Korea – boast unusually equal distributions of market incomes. Each is among the four most equal OECD countries by market income, and each is considerably more equal than Australia.

    Australia ‘less developed’ when it comes to redistribution

    This makes Australia’s weak redistribution system more typical of a low-income emerging economy than an advanced industrial democracy.

    Even Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand do a better job of redistributing income than Australia.

    This new data enhances concerns about the impact of planned Stage 3 tax cuts. By returning proportionately more to high earners than low earners these will further erode the redistributive impact of Australia’s tax system.

    It also highlights the consequences of Australia’s relatively weak payments programs, including JobSeeker which on one measure is the second-weakest in the OECD. It’s an understatement to say we’ve room for improvement.

    The post The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Paying for Collective Bargaining

    New provisions contained in both the Secure Jobs Better Pay (2022) and Closing Loopholes (2023) legislation will expand the scope for collective bargaining (including more opportunities for bargaining at a multi-employer level), make it harder for employers to evade collective bargaining, and empower union delegates to fulfil their responsibilities in workplaces to administer and enforce collective agreements.

    However, one important challenge for Australia’s collective bargaining system, that has not been addressed by these reforms, is how to pay for collective bargaining. The infrastructure of representation, bargaining, implementation and enforcement requires ongoing commitment of people and resources, from both the union and the employer sides of the relationship.

    In Australia at present, the workers’ side of this infrastructure is dependent on voluntary union dues contributed by individuals who choose to join a union in their industry. No collective system of union security or dues collection (such as closed or agency shop arrangements, dues preferences, or bargaining fees) are presently allowed under Australian law. Moreover, Australian law fully protects the ability of individual workers to ‘free ride’ on the benefits and protections negotiated by unions in their workplace: every provision of a collective agreement must be provided to all workers in a defined bargaining unit (whether they are members of the union that negotiated them or not). From a perspective of narrow self-interest, this system discourages union membership — and in turn starves the collective bargaining system of the resources it needs to be viable.

    In this article published in The Conversation, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discusses the nature of this ‘free rider problem,’ and highlights how the treatment of this problem varies wildly between business and union applications. Legal contracts which enforce collective revenue solutions to free-rider problems are common and fully acceptable in many common applications: such as residential strata arrangements, the governance of joint stock corporations, and even government tax collections. Where unions are concerned, however, the law prevents workers from making and enforcing a collective decision to jointly fund the apparatus of collective bargaining, to the shared detriment of workers who consequently cannot exercise collective bargaining power to improve their employment relationship. The rhetoric of ‘individual choice’ is applied selectively to industrial relations; no owner of a strata unit, or shareholder in a corporation, has the ‘free choice’ to refuse to pay the normal costs and obligations associated with those arrangements.

    Australia’s restrictions on union security and collective dues arrangements are uniquely restrictive among industrial countries; they are similar to the rules in so-called ‘right-to-work’ states in the U.S., where union representation has fallen to the low single digits. Free riding has been an important factor in the long-term erosion of union density in Australia: most recent data indicates that just 12.5% of employees in Australia are presently union members. Workers with greater awareness of the importance of collective bargaining to their long-term prosperity will support their unions, even though they are legally entitled to all the benefits of a collective agreement whether they join or not. But the current laws discourage this act of collective solidarity, and collective bargaining has been eroding accordingly. At present just 15% of workers in Australia are covered by an active enterprise agreement (and less than 10% in the private sector). The erosion of collective bargaining has contributed to wage stagnation, growing inequality, and job insecurity.

    Dr Stanford’s Conversation article has been selected for inclusion in the new anthology, 2023: A Year of Consequence, published by Thames & Hudson, and edited by Justin Bergman (International Editor of The Conversation). The book contains several essays published by The Conversation in 2023 that are judged to have contributed most to public policy dialogue in Australia over the past year.

    Further information on the extent and consequences of free riding in Australian collective bargaining, and five different strategies for addressing this problem (based on the variety of policies implemented in other industrial countries where collective bargaining is better-resourced, and hence stronger and more effective), are provided in Dr Stanford’s recent scholarly article in Labour and Industry, titled “International approaches to solving the ‘free rider’ problem in industrial relations.” Click below to see the full article.

    The post Paying for Collective Bargaining appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • A Better Future for Self-Employment (gig work)

    The first is that self-employment is inexorably growing. The second is that self-employment cannot, or should not, be regulated in order to protect self-employed workers and improve the conditions of their work.

    This new report from the Carmichael Centre at the Centre for Future Work shows that, in reality, self-employment is not growing inexorably — in fact, in most countries (including Australia) it is declining.

    The much-trumpeted surge in self-employment and ‘freelancing’ is a myth. However, the nature of self-employment is changing: fewer self-employed people are running successful independent businesses, and more are engaged in precarious ‘solo’ activities like short-term contracting and part-time ‘gig’ work.

    The report also shows that some forms of self-employment can be regulated to protect affected workers, provided two simple and important criteria are satisfied: the workers are vulnerable and hence need protection, and a viable mechanism exists that enables their work to be efficiently regulated.

    The report reviews the proposed provisions of the second part of the federal government’s new Closing Loopholes legislation, which would allow for minimum labour standards to be applied to digital platform workers and owner-operators in the transportation sector. The new legislation (to be considered in Parliament in 2024) is an appropriate and effective response to the challenges facing these two groups of ‘gig’ workers.

    Please see the full report, “A Better Future for Self-Employment: How is it changing, and how can ‘gig’ work be regulated?,” by David Peetz, Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow at the Centre for Future Work.

    The post A Better Future for Self-Employment appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.