My Blog

Tag: Employment & Unemployment

  • Go Home On Time Day 2018: Australians Owed $106 Billion in Unpaid Overtime

    A national survey undertaken as part of the report has shown that the average Australian worker now puts in six hours of unpaid overtime per week, which equates to working an extra two months for free every year. That’s an increase from 5.1 hours on average in last year’s survey.

    “Australians are working more unpaid overtime than ever before, and they’re paying a high price for it,” said Troy Henderson, Economist at the Centre for Future Work.

    “Time theft takes many forms, including employees staying late, coming in early, working through their lunch or other breaks, taking work home on evenings and weekends or being contacted to perform work out of hours.

    “Most Australians wouldn’t dream of working for two months without pay. But it’s spread out over the whole year, and has become part of the implicit expectations of too many jobs. ‘Time theft’ has thus become endemic across the whole labour market.

    “Today we ask that all Australians go home on time and try to limit the unpaid overtime they work. And stopping time theft is ultimately the responsibility of employers and government, too, not just individual workers: employers must value and respect the leisure time of workers, and recognise that work cannot take over our entire lives.”

    The survey indicated that even part-time and casual workers – most of whom want more paid hours of work each week – are being asked to work unpaid overtime (averaging over 4 hours per week for part-timers and almost 3 hours per week for casuals). “Given the problem of underemployment and precarious work in today’s labour market, it is especially unfair that part-time and casual workers are being pressured to work for free,” Mr. Henderson added.

    This year’s Go Home on Time Day survey also included a special questionnaire on the use of digital surveillance and monitoring in Australian workplaces. 70% of respondents said their employers use at least one form of digital surveillance or monitoring, including cameras, GPS tracking, monitoring internet or social media activity or counting keystrokes, to monitor employees – and sometimes to discipline or even dismiss them.

    “Technology can have a strong positive effect in the workplace, but our research shows it is also being used in ways that increase pressure on employees and reduce the level of trust in workplaces,” Mr. Henderson said.

    “It’s clear from our research that millions of Australians are losing out to time theft. Both underemployed workers, and those who work too much, are giving up their precious time for free. All Australian workers have the right to go home on time.”

    The post ‘Go Home On Time Day’ 2018: Australians Owed $106 Billion in Unpaid Overtime, Report Reveals appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Under the Employer’s Eye: Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance

    This year, our survey also included a special section focusing on the forms, prevalence, impacts and implications of electronic and digital monitoring and surveillance in Australian workplaces. Our goal was to investigate a secondary dimension of the time pressure facing Australian workers. It is not just that work is being extended into greater portions of our days (through unpaid overtime, the use of mobile phones and computers to reach workers at any time, pressure to not fully utilise annual leave, and similar trends). In addition, even within the work day, time pressure is intensified with the expectation that every moment of work time must be used for productive purposes – an expectation that is increasingly reinforced through omnipresent systems of monitoring, performance measurement, and surveillance. The result of these twin forces is an overall inability for people to escape from the demands of work: neither at the workplace (even for short periods), nor away from it.

    Part I of this report begins by describing the main forms of modern electronic monitoring and surveillance (EMS) that have placed more Australian workers “under their employer’s eye.” These methods include the use of location tracking technologies, monitoring of emails and social media content, the “gamification” of work, digital methods of performance monitoring, and even electronic systems for employee discipline and dismissal. Following sections examine the various purposes of modern EMS systems, and the extent of their application. This is followed by a brief description of the legal and regulatory system governing EMS in Australia; current regulations limiting employers’ use of these systems are sparse and inconsistent. The last section of Part I discusses the direct and indirect consequences of these new forms of monitoring and surveillance for workers. It argues that the impact of omnipresent surveillance in workplaces may be contributing to the slower wage growth which has so concerned Australian economists and policy experts in recent years; because it is now easier and cheaper to monitor and “motivate” employees through surveillance and potential discipline, employers feel less pressure to provide positive economic incentives (such as job security, promotion, and higher wages) to elicit loyalty and effort from their workforces.

    Part II of the report then reports the findings of our original survey data regarding the forms, extent and impacts of EMS systems in Australian workplaces, and the attitudes of Australian workers towards these technologies and trends. We surveyed 1,459 people between 26 October and 6 November 2018, using an online survey methodology, conducted by Research Now. The sample was nationally representative with respect to gender, age and state and territory.

    The post Under the Employer’s Eye: Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance in Australian Workplaces appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Permanent Casuals, and Other Oxymorons

    Here is a commentary from Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work, discussing the implications of these decisions for the mis-use of casual work. The commentary was originally published on the Ten Daily website.

    Time to rethink reliance on casual work

    Casual work has become a pervasive feature of Australia’s labour market. Until the 1990s, almost all workers, even part-timers, had permanent jobs with reasonably predictable schedules and access to normal work-related entitlements (like paid holidays and sick time). But then employers became obsessed with achieving “flexibility” in hiring. Flexibility sounds like a good thing, but in practice it meant granting employers more freedom to disemploy their workers, with no notice and no severance costs. The downside for workers is lack of certainty in rostering, poor job security, and no access to paid leave. That makes it impossible to make major purchases, plan child care, or take family holidays.

    At last count, around 25 percent of paid employees in Australia (or over 2.5 million workers) were employed on a casual basis. The incidence of casual work has grown noticeably since 2012, when the mining investment boom ended and the overall labour market weakened. Casual work has grown fastest in full-time positions, and among male workers. For young workers (under 25), casual work is especially ubiquitous: 55 percent work casual. OECD data indicates that Australia now has the highest incidence of temporary work of any industrial country.

    Because it is so common, casual work has become “normalised” in the eyes of employers and policy-makers. For example, Craig Laundy, former Commonwealth Minister for the Workplace, endorsed casual work enthusiastically this year, saying it is “a completely appropriate way for many businesses and many employees to conduct their relationship.” Even business lobbyists admit that most casual staff actually work regular and predictable schedules.

    With this normalisation, many industries in Australia now rely on casual work as a permanent, core feature. Instead of using casual workers to meet temporary or seasonal fluctuations in demand, thousands of employers tap a permanent pool of casual workers to meet ongoing staffing requirements. Workers can be stuck on casual status even if they work regular shifts, for years at a time.

    In theory, employers pay a price for this super-flexibility: Australia’s casual loading rules require a 25 percent wage penalty to be paid to casual workers: compensation for lack of access to paid sick leave and holidays, and for the insecurity and instability attached to casual work. In practice, many employers do not pay this wage premium – effectively “hiding it” in lower base wages, or else evading it entirely (especially for young and foreign workers who do not understand the rules). But even if they do pay casual loading, employers should be prevented from abusing casual work as is now commonplace. After all, the inherent insecurity of casual work imposes a cost on workers and their families – a cost that grows if that insecurity is permanent.

    A series of recent legal decisions, however, is now challenging the assumption that casual work can be normal, legitimate and universal. Three particularly important cases could force employers to rethink their reliance on casual staffing:

    • A Federal Court judgment has ordered a labour hire company to pay retroactive annual leave to a mine driver who worked casual for several years, even though he was assigned to regular shifts. Employers complain this ruling somehow amounts to “double-dipping:” they claim that paying the 25 percent casual loading somehow entitles employers to deny paid holidays and other normal rights, even to long-term staff. That assumption has now been refuted.
    • The Fair Work Commission has decided to harmonise evening and Saturday penalty rates between casual and permanent workers in the retail sector. Until now, casuals were denied penalties of up to 25 percent of base wages for those shifts, compared to permanent workers. Now the penalties for casual workers will be raised to the same level as for permanent staff (although, perversely, the Commission is also in the process of cutting penalty rates for all workers on Sundays and holidays).
    • Another Fair Work Commission ruling affecting 85 different modern awards affirmed the right of casual staff to request conversion to permanent status after working regular shifts for a year. Employers can turn down those requests, but only if they would result in major changes in the applicant’s hours of work, or are otherwise “unreasonable.”

    Employers are pushing back hard against these precedents – and they seem to have the ear of the federal government. Business lobbyists predict billions in back payments arising from the annual leave decision, and are demanding legislative changes to avoid those costs. Kelly O’Dwyer, Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, has promised to investigate the idea. Some business groups are even proposing a brand new category of “perma-flexi” workers, who would receive a (smaller) wage loading for accepting casual status for years at a time. Anxious to preserve this highly profitable staffing practice, business leaders seem oblivious to the oxymoron inherent in their proposal for permanent casual work.

    Business complaints about the costs of treating casual workers fairly ring hollow. The 25 percent casual loading system was never intended as a carte blanche: that is, a kind of “permit” that granted employers permission to keep workers in perpetual insecurity, denied access to basic security and regular entitlements. Employers who used casual workers only where originally intended – that is, in temporary or irregular shifts – can continue to do so without significant extra costs.

    However, while promising, these recent decisions do not fully address the misuse of casual work. Casual workers should have broader options to convert to permanent status after shorter periods (say, six months) in a regular position. And the application of casual employment rules (which deny termination pay and notice of dismissal to workers, as well as access to paid leave) should be restricted to carefully-defined and genuine situations of temporary or volatile demand.

    Nevertheless, these recent decisions are an important recognition that employers have been abusing this form of employment. And they are a wake-up call to employers, who should now think hard about reducing their reliance on casual staffing – and get back to creating steady jobs that workers (and their families) can count on.

    The post “Permanent Casuals,” and Other Oxymorons appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Infographic: The Shrinking Labour Share of GDP and Average Wages

    This infographic summarises the bottom-line impact on average wage incomes for Australian workers.

    Labour Share Infographic

    In the March quarter of 2018, labour income (in wages, salaries, and superannuation contributions) accounted for 47.1% of total GDP. That is down over 11 percentage points from the peak labour share (over 58%) recorded in the same quarter of 1975. The loss of that share of GDP, given total output today, is equivalent to a redirection of some $210 billion in annual income – and the research symposium showed that almost all of that income was captured in the form of higher company profits (especially in the financial sector). If it were divided equally amongst all employed Australians, that lost income share translates into foregone income of close to $17,000 per worker.

    Many thanks to Anna Chang for her creative work on the infographic!

    The research symposium highlighted several factors that have caused the long-run shift in income distribution from workers to the business sector, and resulting growth in personal income inequality in Australia. Key factors included the erosion of union representation and collective bargaining, inadequate minimum wages, and the growing power of the financial sector.  For more details, see the articles by Jim Stanford, David Peetz, Margaret Mackenzie, Shaun Wilson, and Frances Flanagan.

    The post Infographic: The Shrinking Labour Share of GDP and Average Wages appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Four Views on Basic Income, Job Guarantees, and the Future of Work

    The unprecedented insecurity of work in Australia’s economy – with the labour market buffeted by technology, globalisation, and new digital business models – has sparked big thinking about policies for addressing this insecurity and enhancing the incomes and well-being of working people. Two ideas which have generated much discussion and debate are proposals for a basic income (through which all adults would receive an unconditional minimum level of income whether they were employed or not) and a job guarantee (whereby government would ensure that every willing worker could be employed in some job, such as public works or public services, thus eliminating involuntary unemployment).

    Progressives have campaigned for generations for stronger income security programs and for a commitment to full employment by government. So these ideas have a long pedigree. However, there is great discussion over both the implementation and cost of these proposals, and their broader (and perhaps unintended) economic and political consequences.

    To shed some additional, constructive perspective on these proposals, we are pleased to present four short commentaries on basic income, job guarantees, and the future of work by four leading Australian experts on the economics and politics of work.

    The four commentaries are posted below in alphabetical order of their authors:

    • Dr. Frances Flanagan, Research Director, United Voice: The Policy and Politics of Basic Income: A Few Concerns
    • Troy Henderson, Economist, Centre for Future Work: Situating Basic Income and a Job Guarantee in a Hierarchy of Pragmatic-Utopian Reform
    • Dr. Ben Spies-Butcher, Dept. of Sociology, Macquarie University: Basic Income as a Progressive Priority
    • Dr. Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work: Work, Technology, and Basic Income: Issues to Consider

    Three of the commentaries (by Flanagan, Henderson, and Spies-Butcher) were initially presented to the recent “Reboot the Future” conference in Sydney, hosted by Greens NSW Political Education Trust. The authors expanded and edited their remarks for the purposes of this symposium. We thank the organisers for their cooperation. The fourth commentary (by Stanford) arose from recent discussions within the Centre for Future Work’s voluntary Advisory Committee. Together, we think these nuanced commentaries add valuable perspective to these important but complex policy debates.

    Our publication of these commentaries coincides with this week’s annual General Assembly of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), being held this year at the University of Tampere in Finland. In a personal capacity, Centre for Future Work economist Troy Henderson is presenting at the Assembly on his Ph.D. research regarding the fiscal and labour market impacts of basic income.

    We will continue to consider the advantages and disadvantages of both these important policy proposals in future research and commentary. We thank the authors for their contributions to this discussion, and welcome further feedback!

    The post Four Views on Basic Income, Job Guarantees, and the Future of Work appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Workers’ slice of Australian economic pie gets smaller

    The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work has today published a new research symposium documenting how workers’ slice of the national economic pie continues to get smaller.

    Key findings:

    • From peak levels of 58 per cent of GDP in the mid-1970s labour compensation — including wages, salaries, and superannuation contributions — declined to just 47 percent in 2017, their lowest level since 1960.
    • Real wages have consistently lagged behind the ongoing growth in labour productivity, meaning workers are not getting paid enough to buy back the goods and services they produce.
    • The loss of labour’s share of GDP translates into the redirection of over $200 billion in income per year from workers to other groups in society (mostly corporations).

    “In recent years, wages have barely kept up with consumer price inflation – and for many workers, they have fallen behind,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work.

    “The fact that the workers’ slice of the economic pie continues to get smaller speaks volumes about the lopsided power imbalance in today’s labour market.

    “The decline in Australia’s labour share from the 1970s peak to the present, ranks among the worst of all OECD countries, even worse than the United States.

    “Almost the entire decline in the labour share has been reflected in a corresponding increase in the share of GDP going to corporate profits – especially the financial sector.

    “In short, while the workers’ share has continued to get smaller, the share of corporate profits has continued to get larger.

    “By comparison, in some countries the labour share has been stable or rose during the same period, disproving the claim that this trend is somehow ‘universal’ or ‘inevitable’.

    “Without urgent measures to strengthen labour standards and protections, including stronger minimum wages and a restoration of meaningful collective bargaining, this decline will almost certainly continue.

    “The company tax cuts for big business now being proposed by the federal government are just the icing on top of an already-rich cake.”

    This research resulted from a special panel of experts convened by the Centre for Future Work, at the Society for Heterodox Economists conference at UNSW in Sydney last December. The papers from that panel have been peer-reviewed, and are published this week in the Journal of Australian Political Economy.

    Authors contributing to the symposium include Dr.David Peetz (Griffith University), Dr. Shaun Wilson (Macquarie University), Dr. Margaret Mackenzie (Economist, Australian Council of Trade Unions), and Dr. Jim Stanford (Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work).

    The post Workers’ slice of Australian economic pie gets smaller appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Penalty rate cuts fail to ignite jobs boom

    A new report from The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work examined employment and working hours in the retail and hospitality industries in the year since penalty rates were first cut.

    The report found, since the initial penalty rate reduction imposed by the Fair Work Commission on 1 July 2017:

    • The retail sector in particular performed very badly relative to the rest of the economy.
    • Total employment was unchanged in the year ending in May 2018, continuing a long-term trend of employment stagnation.
    • Full-time employment declined by 50,000 positions.
    • Average weekly hours of work declined by more than a full hour, and the underemployment ratio (share of workers who want more hours) grew almost 2 percentage points.
    • The hospitality sector (accommodation and food services) experienced similar results, including weak job-creation, a loss of full-time employment, shorter average hours of work, and higher underemployment.

    “Far from experiencing a jobs boom, the retail and hospitality sectors have significantly underperformed the rest of the economy in terms of both hiring and working hours,” says Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work.

    “Most industries where penalty rates were unchanged did far better at job-creation than the two sectors where penalty rates were cut.

    “Employer representatives argued that reducing labour costs for work on Sundays and holidays would spur a big expansion in employment, one group even predicted 40,000 new jobs. Our report found that was simply not the case.

    “Based on a number of criteria, the retail and hospitality sectors performed among the worst of any Australian industries in the year since penalty rates were first cut.

    “While lower penalty rates are not the cause of the poor performance, our research certainly disproves inflated claims by employers and government that cutting labour costs would unleash a jobs boom.

    “If we really want more jobs, we should boost wages, improve job security, and strengthen purchasing power throughout the economy. Cutting penalty rates does the opposite.”

    The post Penalty rate cuts fail to ignite jobs boom appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Dimensions of Insecure Work in Australia

    Share of Workers in Full-Time Paid Employment with Leave Entitlements. Source: Centre for Future Work calculations from ABS Catalogues 6291.0.55.003, EQ04 (2017), and 6333.0 Tables 2.3 and 9.1 (2012).

    The report, The Dimensions of Insecure Work: A Factbook, reviews eleven statistical indicators of the growth in employment insecurity over the last five years: including part-time work, short hours, underemployment, casual jobs, marginal self-employment, and jobs paid minimum wages under modern awards.

    All these indicators of job stability have declined since 2012, thanks to a combination of weak labour market conditions, aggressive profit strategies by employers, and passivity by labour regulators. Together, these trends have produced a situation where over 50 per cent of Australian workers now experience one or more of these dimensions of insecurity in their jobs - and less than half have access to “standard,” more secure employment.

    “Australians are rightly worried about the growing insecurity of work, especially for young people,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, one of the co-authors of the report. “Many young people are giving up hope of finding a permanent full-time job, and if these trends continue, many of them never will.”

    The report also documents the low and falling earnings received by workers in insecure jobs. While real wages for those in permanent full-time positions (the best-paid category) have grown, wages for casual workers have declined. And part-time workers in marginal self-employed positions (including so-called “gig” workers) have fared the worst: with real wages falling 26 percent in the last five years.

    “Given current labour market conditions and lax labour standards, employers are able to hire workers on a ‘just-in-time’ basis,” Dr. Stanford said. “They employ workers only when and where they are most needed, and then toss them aside. This precariousness imposes enormous risks and costs on workers, their families, and the whole economy.”

    Dr. Stanford called on policy-makers to address growing precarity with stronger rules to protect workers in insecure jobs (such as provisions for more stable schedules, and options to transition to permanent from casual work). He also stressed the need for economic policies that target the creation of permanent full-time jobs.

    The post The Dimensions of Insecure Work in Australia appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Insecure work: The New Normal

    In this commentary article published originally by Ten Daily, Our Director Dr. Jim Stanford summarises the findings of the Centre’s recent report on “The Dimensions of Insecure Work.”

    If You Have A Stable Full-Time Job You’re An Endangered Species

    Ask any young job-seeker about their prospects of finding a permanent full-time job, and they won’t know whether to laugh or cry. Sure, they might get a few hours of work here, a few hours there: piecing together disparate “gigs” in hopes of paying the rent.

    But landing a permanent full-time job with a regular salary and basic benefits (like paid holidays and superannuation)? Dream on.

    It’s no surprise that young workers experience the insecurity of modern work most brutally: they don’t have experience, seniority, or connections to help them in their hunt. But precarious work now affects Australians of any age, in all sectors of the economy, not just those trying to break in. What was once considered a “standard” job – the kind where you know where and when you will work, and how much you will earn – now feels like the exception, not the rule. And in fact, the hard numbers now confirm it: insecure work has indeed become the new normal.

    With co-author Dr. Tanya Carney, I recently assembled data on eleven different dimensions of job insecurity, based on official statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other government sources. We considered many aspects of the problem: including the rise of part-time work, casual jobs, people working very short hours, temporary foreign workers, and workers in nominally “self-employed” positions.

    In every case, there has been a marked increase in insecurity in recent years. A turning point was reached in 2012, as the mining investment boom (that underpinned several years of strong job conditions) turned down. That boom, and associated macroeconomic expansion, had masked longer-run structural shifts in the nature of employment – but only for a while. But now, since 2012, the sea-change in employment relationships is starkly visible.

    It was when we put all of these different indicators of insecurity together, that a startling conclusion became clear. The standard “job” has been whittled away on all sides – by part-time work, by casual and temporary jobs, by shifting more tasks to supposedly independent contractors and self-employed gig workers. And in 2017, for the first time since these statistics have been collected, the proportion of employed Australians filling a standard job fell below 50 percent. Less than half of employed Australians now work in a permanent full-time paid position with basic entitlements (like sick pay and paid holidays).

    In other words, most employed Australians experience one or more dimensions of insecurity in their jobs. Insecure work, once on the margins of the labour market, is now the norm. In fact, many workers experience multiple aspects of this insecurity.

    For example, part-time marginally self-employed workers are among the most insecure of all. They have no employees of their own; most aren’t even incorporated. They get a tax number, and then scrabble from gig to gig – accepting outsourced work from large firms who once hired actual employees to perform these tasks. Their incomes, low to start with, have declined a shocking 26 percent in real terms since 2012. They now make, on average, barely one-third as much as a typical paid full-time permanent employee.

    Surprisingly, some defenders of the status quo in Australia’s labour market deny any problem with job security. For example, Craig Laundy, Australia’s Minister for Small Business, claims insecure work is not actually more common, and defends casual work as “a completely appropriate way for many businesses and many employees to conduct their relationship.” Business lobbyists also deny work has become any less secure.

    But this flies in the face of both the official statistics, and the lived experience of millions of Australians struggling to find stable employment. And the increasing precarity of modern work in turn produces a spate of economic, social and political consequences. Households can’t predict their future income; they also can’t make long-run financial commitments (like buying a home, supporting children through higher education, or saving for retirement). Consumer spending and financial stability suffer, as does growth and job-creation.

    Politically, the frustration of millions of Australians about this chronic insecurity will inevitably bubble up at the polling booths. Job insecurity has reached a tipping point, now that less than half of all employed workers fill standard permanent full-time jobs. Sooner or later, a political tipping point will also be reached: as Australians react against the erosion of the ideal of a “fair go.”

    For this reason, hopeful politicians should be ready to present convincing ideas for restoring job stability and shared prosperity, in the lead-up to the next Commonwealth election. Denying that there is even a problem, will not likely do the trick.

    Jim Stanford is Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute. With Tanya Carney he is co-author of The Dimensions of Insecure Work: A Factbook.

    The post Insecure work: The New Normal appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • For First Time, Less than Half of Workers Have a Standard Job

    A new report by the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute looks at the growing insecurity of work in Australia.

    The report reviews 11 statistical indicators of the growth in employment insecurity over the last five years, including: part-time work, short hours, underemployment, casual jobs, marginal self-employment, and jobs paid minimum wages under modern awards.

    All these indicators of job stability have declined since 2012, leading to a majority of Australian workers now experiencing one or more of these indicators of job – and less than half have access to what was once considered a ‘standard job’.

    “Australians are rightly worried about the growing insecurity of work. We are now seeing less than half of employed Australians holding a ‘standard job’, with dependable hours, pay, and benefits” said Dr. Jim Stanford, director of the Centre for Future Work.

    “In particular, many young people are giving up hope of finding a permanent full-time job – and if these trends continue, many of them never will.”

    The report also documents the low and falling earnings received by workers in insecure jobs:

    • While real wages for those in the best paid job category – permanent full-time jobs – have grown, wages for casual workers have declined.
    • Part-time workers in marginal self-employed positions (including so-called ‘gig economy’ workers) have fared the worst, with real wages falling 26 percent in the last five years.

    “Given current labour market conditions and lax labour standards, employers are able to hire workers on a ‘just-in-time’ basis, employing workers only when and where they are most needed and then tossing them aside afterwards,” said Dr Stanford.

    “This insecurity imposes enormous risks and costs on workers, their families, and the whole economy.”

    Dr. Stanford called on policy-makers to address growing job precarity with stronger rules to protect workers in insecure jobs, such as provisions for more stable schedules, and options to transition to from casual work to permanent positions. He also stressed the need for economic policies that target the creation of permanent full-time jobs.

    The post For First Time, Less than Half of Workers Have a ‘Standard Job’ appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.