My Blog

Category: Opinions

  • Right to Disconnect Essential as Devices Intrude Into Workers Lives

    Australia’s Parliament is set to pass a new set of reforms to the Fair Work Act and other labour laws, that would enshrine certain protections for workers against being contacted or ordered to perform work outside of normal working hours. This “Right to Disconnect” is an important step in limiting the steady encroachment of work demands into leisure, family, and recreation time. In the most recent edition of our Centre’s annual Go Home on Time Day survey, the average Australian worker performed 280 hours of unpaid time per year — and that time is worth a staggering $130 billion in annual lost incomes. The ubiquitous use of digital devices (from email to texts to WhatsApp) is facilitating this expansion of time theft.

    Dr Chris F. Wright is Associate Professor in the Discipline of Work and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney, and also a member of the Centre for Future Work’s Advisory Committee. He has prepared this excellent summary (originally published in The Conversation) about the benefits of a right to disconnect. Please also see our 2022 report, Call Me Maybe (Not!), by Eliza Littleton and Lily Raynes, on examples of enshrining the right from other countries, and survey evidence showing Australians’ strong support for the idea.

    Smartphones Mean We’re Always Available to our Bosses. ‘Right to Disconnect’ Laws are a Necessary Fix

    by Dr Chris F. Wright

    Australian workers are set to have the right to disconnect from their workplaces once they clock off for the day.

    This will “empower workers to ignore work calls and emails after hours [from their employers], where those demands are unreasonable”, according to Greens Senator Barbara Pocock who has been driving the change.

    Last week, the Senate committee reviewing the “Closing Loopholes” amendments to the Fair Work Act recommended introducing a right to disconnect to support “the development of clear expectations about contact and availability in workplaces”. On Wednesday, the Albanese government indicated it supported the amendment.

    Why a right to disconnect is needed

    Last year, the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care drew attention to “availability creep” where employees are increasingly expected to complete work outside of work hours.

    Smartphones have made it easier for managers to contact workers any time. The shift to remote working during the COVID pandemic caused the boundaries between work and personal life to disintegrate further.

    According to a 2022 report by the Centre for Future Work, 71% of workers surveyed had worked outside their scheduled work hours often due to overwork or pressure from managers.

    This led to increased tiredness, stress or anxiety for about one-third of workers surveyed, disrupted relationships and personal lives for more than one-quarter, and lower job motivation and satisfaction for around one-fifth.

    Parliamentary inquiries have highlighted the negative consequences of working outside scheduled hours for mental and physical health, productivity and turnover.

    Availability creep has led to significant unpaid overtime which “takes workers away from a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”.

    The impacts are especially acute for certain groups of workers. Those on insecure contracts lack the power to resist availability creep. Those with unpaid care responsibilities are likely to experience intensified work/life balance.

    “Roster justice”

    The right to disconnect provides a solution to these challenges. The Senate select committee on work and care found such a right can provide workers with “roster justice” by giving more certainty over their working hours.

    Many countries in Europe, Asia, North America and South America have already established laws or regulations limiting employers contacting workers outside work hours.

    At least 56 enterprise agreements currently operating in Australia provide a right to disconnect. This includes agreements covering teachers, police officers and various banks and financial institutions.

    Industrial Relations Minister Tony Burke has indicated the right to disconnect legislation will provide employers with “reasonable grounds” to contact their employees outside work hours. This might include calling employees to see if they can fill a shift.

    If enterprise agreements with existing right to disconnect clauses are an indication, the Fair Work Commission will probably be asked to determine what contact outside of work hours is deemed “reasonable”. This approach seems sensible given the long tradition of the commission being asked to rule on what’s “reasonable” in other areas of employment law.

    If an employer “unreasonably” expects employees to perform unpaid work outside of normal hours the commission may be empowered to impose a “stop order” — and potentially fines — to prevent the employer from contacting employees outside hours according to Tony Burke.

    Unions including those representing teachers and police officers support a right to disconnect. According to the Police Federation of Australia:

    Not only do the police see that trauma, deal with the families’ trauma, deal with their colleagues’ trauma, have to investigate, have to go to court, and get media attention but they also have to go home and deal with their families […] The right to disconnect gives those officers that little bit of breathing space.

    Employment law experts and human resource specialists also believe there is a strong case for such a right given the negative impacts of availability creep on worker well being.

    Employer associations are less supportive. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) told a recent Senate inquiry a right to disconnect would be “a blunt instrument which will do more harm than good, including for employees”. They claim employers will be less accommodating of employee requests for flexible work arrangements during normal work hours if contact outside these hours is no longer allowed.

    A banana republic?

    According to ACCI chief executive Andrew McKellar, a right to disconnect would be “the final step in Australia becoming a banana republic”.

    But it must be remembered that workers effectively had the right to disconnect before the smartphone. Such a protection needs to be explicit now technology has eroded the once-firm boundaries between work and home.

    As the nature of work and employer practices change, it’s essential for employment regulations to respond accordingly. Having a right to disconnect to protect workers from employers encroaching upon their free-time is a necessary response.

    The post “Right to Disconnect” Essential as Devices Intrude Into Workers’ Lives appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • We Cannot Truly Value Care Until Workers Using Digital Labour Platforms Get Fair Pay and Conditions

    Australia risks returning to the days when the value of a female care worker’s effort and their working conditions were largely determined in private, informal relationships out of sight and out of the scope of regulation that protects most other workers.

    For most of the 20th Century, women workers providing care and assistance to people in private residences were explicitly excluded from the industrial relations system that ensured rights and standards, including minimum wages and employment conditions, for 90 per cent of Australian workers.

    Homecare and other social and community services workers were only recognised as workers at the end of the century, after long and enormously difficult struggles by women and their unions.

    Finally, in the 1990s, for the first time, care and support workers gained regulated minimum standards of pay and conditions. Previously, as unregulated workers, they had extremely low pay rates and some of the worst working conditions in Australia.

    Fast forward thirty years to 2024. The care and support workforce is still highly feminised. It is large and it is growing 3 times faster than other sectors in the Australian economy. Most care and support jobs are still relatively low-paid and insecure.

    Today, however, the need for fair pay, better quality jobs, and career paths for care and support workers has the attention of government and other policy makers. In the wake of the pandemic there is greater appreciation of how the quality of these jobs impacts on the quality of care and support for the aged and people with disability.

    And it is very clear that, if we are to successfully tackle Australia’s gender pay gap and women’s economic inequality, we must ensure better pay and career pathways for care and support workers.

    But now, digital or ‘gig’ labour platforms are undermining the slow progress that has been made towards proper recognition and valuing of care work. This is because most platforms, through which aged care and disability support workers connect with people requiring care and support, insist that workers are independent contractors.

    Platforms compete in the NDIS and aged care markets by using independent contractors to provide cheaper services, while other service providers directly employ workers. Platforms profit from avoiding the costs of employment, including superannuation, training and supervision. Platform workers have no minimum employment standards.

    Digital platform care and support workers have a lot in common with previous care and domestic workers who, for most of the 20th Century, were invisible and isolated, and struggled to have their labour recognised as work.

    Platform workers are without any rights to minimum rates of pay, working time standards, superannuation or other benefits and protections they would have as employees. They mostly perform their labour without peer support, organisational supervision and training, and they are cut off from opportunities for development and promotion.

    Opponents of employment standards for platform care and support workers don’t see it like this. They argue standards are not needed as workers are “entrepreneurs” who set their own rates, earn more than employees, enjoy the flexibility of working when and where they want, and are doing this work as a “side hustle” on top of more substantial jobs.

    None of this is true of the majority of care and support workers on platforms. Most (70 per cent) believe they are employees of the platform, even though they’re not. Even the platforms’ own data shows that workers from groups likely to be vulnerable to exploitation – migrants and younger workers – are over-represented on platforms. Many workers are paid below the relevant award minimum pay rate.

    It makes little sense to refer to jobs as side hustles when 4 out of 5 home and community-based care and support jobs (on and off platforms) are part-time, often short-hours jobs.

    Just because jobs are part-time, or a worker holds multiple jobs, doesn’t mean fair pay and working conditions don’t matter.

    For decades, women had to put up with undervalued work while employers, economists and public policy makers argued women worked in care jobs for love rather than money, and their earnings were not essential income. Present-day arguments opposing minimum standards are a little different, however, they would achieve the same end, perpetuating undervaluation and gender inequality.

    The post We Cannot Truly Value ‘Care’ Until Workers Using Digital Labour Platforms Get Fair Pay and Conditions appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Closing Loopholes: Important repairs to the industrial relations system, no more, no less

    Labour hire workers can no longer be paid less than employees doing the same job in their workplaces as a result of industrial reforms passed by Parliament.

    However, other important reforms to close loopholes in employment laws and stop exploitation of workers and avoidance of standards won’t be voted on in Parliament until next year.

    This leaves gig platform workers and road transport contractors waiting to get much-needed minimum pay and conditions standards.

    On the final sitting day of Parliament for 2023, the government’s amended Closing Loopholes bill was passed.

    With a Senate Inquiry into the bill due to report in February it was a surprise to many that some of the reforms were legislated, especially the so-called same-job, same-pay labour hire reforms that had been strongly contested by employers.

    This reform targets gaps in laws that have allowed some large and profitable corporations, including BHP and Qantas, to use labour hire to engage workers on rates that undercut those agreed in enterprise agreements.

    A Senate Inquiry heard evidence that, as a result of employers using labour hire this way, workers were being paid up to tens of thousands of dollars less than employees doing the same work in the same workplace.

    As with the government’s 2022 Secure Jobs, Better Pay bargaining reforms, opposition by some employers to this latest reform has been intense, involving an expensive and unnecessary scare campaign.

    The mining employers’ advocacy body, the Minerals Council, was reported to be spending up to $24 million to fight the labour hire changes and, on the day of the bill’s passing, issued a statement greatly exaggerating the nature and extent of the reform by declaring it to be a ‘‘dramatic rewriting of workplace law’’.

    To get the IR changes through the Senate the government needed to secure the support of key independents and, as a result of this, some parts of the Closing Loopholes bill were set aside to be considered by Parliament in February.

    The parts of the bill set aside until next year include minimum standards for digital platform and road transport workers and changes that make it easier for casual employees who want to become permanent.

    Getting the platform and road transport industry changes in place will be critical for improving working lives and ensuring fair pay and conditions for tens of thousands of low-paid and vulnerable workers who are currently without most rights to minimum standards at work, due to their classification as contractors.

    The reticence of independent senators Jacqui Lambie and David Pocock to pass the platform and road transport industry reforms is perhaps not surprising, given the strong and powerful lobby groups and companies such as Uber, who insist all platform workers are entrepreneurs and small business people not in need of protections, despite the numbers of young, inexperienced, migrant and vulnerable workers in these arrangements.

    Platforms say the costs to consumers will increase exponentially. Small business groups argue reforms are all too complicated and may have far-reaching unintended consequences.

    Labour law experts disagree. It is to be hoped that the extra time for consideration of the proposed changes gives the independents an opportunity to go with the evidence.

    With the support of the Greens and the independent senators some other important Closing Loopholes reforms were in the legislation passed.

    These include new laws to make wage theft a criminal offence, reforms to better protect some workers’ redundancy entitlements and changes to enhance work health and safety.

    Industrial manslaughter will now be a criminal offence, protections for workers experiencing family and domestic violence will be strengthened, and first responders/emergency workers with PTSD will have improved access to support.

    Making superannuation theft a crime is a welcome outcome of the government’s negotiations with the Greens.

    There can be little doubt of the need to act on intentional non-payment of superannuation, with the Australian Taxation Office recently reporting that Australian workers are owed more than $2 billion in unpaid superannuation.

    Superannuation theft not only affects workers’ retirement incomes but can see death and disability insurances cancelled.

    The government has also agreed to consider an amendment to provide workers with a right to disconnect from work outside work hours.

    Despite the protestations of some employer groups there is not much that can be called radical in the Closing Loopholes reform package.

    For the most part, the reforms passed this year and the ones still on the table are exactly what the government says they are – improvements to plug gaps and close loopholes that have allowed some workers to miss out on basic protections, standards and benefits that most other workers enjoy and most employers are happy to provide.

    The post Closing Loopholes: Important repairs to the industrial relations system, no more, no less 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.

  • Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time

    Yesterday’s mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) provided some pleasing news for the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. But higher revenue does not mean a stronger economy nor that households are better off.

    While the Treasurer was releasing the latest budget numbers the annual figures for median earnings were released by the Bureau of Statistics.

    These figures showed that the median weekly earnings in August this year were $1,300 – a rise of 4.2% from last year, which was less than the 5.4% increase in inflation.

    That weekly amount translates to $67,600 in annual earnings.

    People earning that amount will get just $565 from the Stage 3 tax cuts (0.8%) while someone on $200,000 – well in the top 10% of earners will get a 4.5% cut worth $9,075.

    The Treasurer told ABC 730 on Wednesday night that the government has not changed its position on Stage 3 and that “We think there is an important role for returning bracket creep where governments can afford to do that.”

    The problem is the Stage 3 cuts are mostly focused at rewarding those on high incomes, who are least affected by bracket creep.

    If the Government was truly worried about using the bonus revenue from higher export prices to assist low and middle-income earners it would care more about those on the median income of $66,700 than those in the top tax bracket and top 10% of income.

    The post Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • After two years of profit-led inflation, workers deserve the pay rises they are getting

    The latest wage growth figures showed that workers’ wages for the past six months have grown faster than inflation. As Labour Market Policy Director, Greg Jericho writes in his Guardian Australia column, this should be celebrated. We need to shed our fear of wage rises. For too long any sign of increasing wage growth has been viewed as something to be stomped on while ever-increasing corporate profits have been cheered.

    Since the start of the pandemic, workers’ purchasing power has crashed, and the only way to recover the lost real wages is through wages increasing faster than inflation.

    The 1.4% growth of private-sector wages in the September quarter was driven largely off the back of the Fair Work Commission’s decision to increase Award wages by 5.75% and the decision to give aged-care workers a 15% pay rise.

    As a result around 40% of those who gained a pay rise in the September quarter received one greater than 4%.

    One other pleasing sign has been the relaxation of public sector wage caps has allowed those workers around the country to get a fairer pay rise, but their increases remain well below that of the private-sector.

    The profit-led inflation since 2021 hurt workers, and it now is only fair that they receive some recompense. After a decade of ever falling wage growth and a pandemic and recover that smashed real wages, it is very good news that workers are finally getting their fair reward.

    The post After two years of profit-led inflation, workers deserve the pay rises they are getting appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Government needs to act on Stage 3 as the RBA warns about wealthy households spending

    The Reserve Bank’s decision to raise interest rates on Tuesday lacked any clear reasoning.

    When compared with other periods such as during the mining boom, when household spending was growing fast and real wages were surging, we can see that the economy at the moment is much weaker. Households are now cutting back on luxuries as their real wages fall.

    But the RBA pointed out that one group of Australians are doing OK – those with high income and wealth. Those with large savings buffers and who are also enjoying the increased wealth from rising house prices are still spending.

    This is also the group who are about to be handed the biggest income tax cut in history. The Reserve Bank has made it clear that allowing Stage 3 to go forward in its current form will only fuel inflation and likely result in higher interest rates for all.

    With a Reserve Bank desperate to use any excused to raise rates and slow the economy even as it already slows, the Government needs to amend the Stage 3 cuts to deliver greater benefit to low-middle income households who have suffered the most from the rising cost of living and interest rates, and less to those who are already doing well and for whom a potential $9,075 tax cut would just put more fuel on the inflation fire.

    The post The Government needs to act on Stage 3 as the RBA warns about wealthy households spending appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • When the prices of necessities are rising fast, the RBA does not need to hit households with another rate rise

    In the past week, the likelihood of the Reserve Bank raising the cash rate to 4.35% has gone from about 20% prior to last week’s inflation figures coming out, to now an even-money bet.

    But when you look at the cost of living figures out this week it is clear that households are already having to reduce their spending on non-discretionary items.

    Out of the 14 biggest contributors to inflation, 10 were non-discretionary items.

    At this point we should note the comments of the secretary of the Treasury, Steven Kennedy, last week in Senate estimates. He was asked about the pathway to a “soft landing” – ie where inflation falls without us going into a recession.

    He noted that chances of a soft landing were made harder by recent rises in oil prices because “on the one hand, it will increase headline inflation by raising petrol prices. On the other hand, it may well reduce growth and see other prices fall because people have less to spend. At least in the short term, expenditure on petrol is not very discretionary.”

    When the prices of things you can’t avoid paying for rise faster than others, then that obviously reduces your ability to spend elsewhere. In this way petrol, electricity and rental price rises have the same impact as do interest rate rises.

    The most recent figures of the volume of retail spending will come out tomorrow, but we know that the volume has been falling, and is now back to pre-pandemic trend levels:

    This of course is what you would expect – when the cost of non-retail items such as petrol, mortgages, rents, electricity, property rates, medical services and insurance are rising, you are going to buy less in the shops.

    Since March last year the cost of mortgages has gone up 114%. Does the Reserve Bank think households haven’t really noticed that?

    Even you if discount the record low rates during the pandemic, the cost of mortgages is now about 70% higher than it was at the end of 2019. Since then, wages have risen only about 10.5%.

    Another rate rise is not going to do anything other than add to the cost of necessities. It would not so much reduce inflation as increase the cost of living and hit households whose wages and incomes continue to be worth less than they were a year ago.

    The post When the prices of necessities are rising fast, the RBA does not need to hit households with another rate rise appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Reserve Bank should not raise rates on Melbourne Cup Day

    The latest CPI figures showed inflation grew 5.4%, down from 6% in the June quarter and almost a third below the peak of 7.8% at the end of last year. And yet commentators seem desperate for the Reserve Bank of Australia to raise interest rates next month to show it is tough on inflation. But raising rates now would not be tough, it would just be cruel.

    The annual growth of inflation is falling quite quickly – down from 7.8% at the end of last year. But because the quarterly growth of inflation rose in the September quarter, a numbe rof commentators and economists have been suggesting that the Reserve Bank should raise interest rates in two months.

    But when you examine the drivers of inflation in the September quarter, there is little that would have an impact from higher interest rates.

    Automotive fuel prices accounted for 20% of the growth in inflation in September – that is completely unaffected by rate rises given that it was all due to higher world oil prices due to OPECD restricting supply. Similarly rental prices, electricity, property rates and charges, insurance, tobacco and beer prices have nothing to do with interest rates. Even the cost of building a new home is driven mostly by the increased cost of construction materials from overseas.

    Crucially in the September quarter the cost of “non-discretionary item” rose 1.4% while the cost of “discretionary” item rose just 0.7%. Non-discretionary items are things which you cannot avoid paying (at least in the short-term). In effect those price rises have the same impact on consumer spending as do rate rises – they reduce the ability of people to spend money on things in shops and on discretionary services.

    Had the RBA raised interest rates more in the September quarter there would have been negligible impact on the main drivers of inflation, raising them in November due to these latest figures would just be cruel and hurting people whose real wages continue to fall.

    The post The Reserve Bank should not raise rates on Melbourne Cup Day appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Australia is an energy super power, we need to use that power for good

    As the Australian Government continues to pursue policies notionally designed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, a great store has been placed in Australia becoming a “renewable energy superpower”. However as Labour Market and Fiscal Policy Director, Greg Jericho, notes in his Guardian Australia column, Australia already is an energy superpower. But we fail to use that power for good.

    Australia is either the world’s largest or second-largest exporter of metallurgical coal, thermal coal and LNG. And yet we have not sought to use this power to pursue policies that would reduce demand for fossil fuels and transition the world towards renewable energy. Instead, we placate mining companies and give no timeline to end coal and gas use. We continue to approve new coal mines and fail to insert a climate-change trigger into environment protection legislation that determines whether new mines can be approved.

    Given September this year was the hottest September on record, after August this year being the hottest August on record, July this year being the hottest July on record and June this year being the hottest June on record, the time for action that reduces Australia’s and the world’s emissions is urgent and critical.

    Climate change is one area where Australia can legitimately take a leading role in global affairs, our power as an energy producer and supplier of fossil fuels which continue to exacerbate climate change demands we show this leadership.

    For too long Australian governments have cowered before mining companies, now it’s the time to realise we have the minerals they want now and in the future when renewable energy becomes the dominant power and thus we can dictate terms.

    Leadership requires the grasping of power and using it for good.

    The post Australia is an energy super power, we need to use that power for good appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.