My Blog

Tag: Future of Work

  • Submission: Digital Transformation of Workplaces

    Submission to inquiry on digital transformation and worker rights.

    Authors: Macdonald, Heap

    Download the full report.

  • 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.

  • The Future of Work in Journalism

    The new report, The Future of Work in Journalism, was written by Dr. Jim Stanford with the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute. It catalogues the employment and economic damage wrought in media and information industries by the combination of technological change, new business models, and globalisation.

    “It is ironic that we supposedly live in an ‘information economy,’ but Australia’s capacity to contribute fully and successfully to that information era is crumbling due to financial losses and massive job destruction,” Stanford said.

    Major findings of the report include:

    • The broader information, media, and telecommunications industry lost over 30,000 jobs between 2007 (its peak employment) and 2019. Publishing was the worst-affected sub-sector, losing over half of its jobs as newspapers and other print media grappled with new technologies and major losses.
    • New jobs in digital activities (such as internet publishing) are not offsetting the loss of work in conventional media.
    • Jobs remaining in the media industry have become more insecure: with almost one-third part-time, and a growing share casual and contractor positions.
    • Real wages are falling in the media industry, despite a dramatic increase in labour productivity. Real value-added per employee in media industries has been growing at 4% per year since 2012, but real labour compensation has been falling.

    “Workers in these industries are producing more with less, despite the turmoil of technological change, job losses, and restructuring,” Stanford said. “But that extraordinary effort is not translating into more secure or better paid jobs – quite the contrary.”

    The report argues that quality journalism is a ‘public good’ in a modern democracy, because of its importance in distributing reliable information (including on emergencies, like the pandemic) to citizens. The failure of private markets to sustainably supply this service (due to corporate concentration, unrestrained ‘free riding’ on content produced by other, and globalisation) necessitates public policy action to stabilise the industry and support continued journalism.

    The report makes several suggestions for policy measures to sustain journalism despite those market failures, including publicly-funded journalism, stronger property rights for content-creators, tax reforms, stronger anti-trust regulations (on major digital monopolies like Google and Facebook), and stronger support for training and vocational education in the sector.

    The report was commissioned by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the union representing journalists and other media workers. Marcus Strom, the MEAA’s Media Federal President, said: “The report makes it clear that years of disruption, undermining and neglect have left Australian journalism and journalists in a fragile state.”

    Strom urged the Commonwealth government to step up its support for domestic journalism. ““Public interest journalism is a public good. It informs and entertains Australians, ensures the public’s right to know and holds the powerful to account. If we want that to continue, then there is no time to waste to address the many challenges facing those working in journalism and the entire media industry.”

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

  • Video: Myth & Reality About Technology, Skills & Jobs

    But what if technology isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? And what if you invest in learning the current hot coding language, only to see it replaced by something totally different as soon as you graduate?

    In this 30-minute video, Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Dr. Jim Stanford takes on several myths related to technology and jobs.

    He argues that technology is neither exogenous nor neutral: innovation reflects the priorities (and the power) of those who have the resources to pay for it. By some indicators, jobs are becoming less technology-intensive — and this is undermining job security and living standards. Finally, we need a more holistic and democratic approach to skills and training: one that respects the all-round interests of workers as human beings (not just ‘producers’), and accepts that skills alone are no guarantee of decent, fair jobs in the future.

    The video is an excellent, free resource for adult education workshops, career development courses, and union meetings.

    The post Video: Myth & Reality About Technology, Skills & Jobs appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Failure to Invest in New Tech Damaging Economy, Incomes & Jobs

    The report findings contrast sharply with the common concern that robots and other forms of automation will threaten future job security for Australian workers.

    Major findings include:

    • Business investment in new machinery (including robots) is weaker than at any point in Australia’s post-war history.
    • Business spending on new research and technology has also been falling in Australia, and now ranks well behind the average of other industrial countries (and even some emerging economies, like China).
    • The average amount of machinery and equipment used by the typical Australian worker has been declining since 2014, and has since fallen by 6%.
    • Because of less automation and innovation, average productivity in Australia’s economy has also been declining for three straight years – also the weakest performance in Australia’s post-war history.

    “Australian businesses are not investing nearly enough in new technology,” said Dr Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

    “This lack of business investment in new technology does not mean that Australian jobs are somehow safer. To the contrary, the failure of business investment means that even more jobs will be located in low-productivity, low-tech, low-wage industries – with terrible implications for wages and job quality.

    “Business leaders love to complain that Australia’s productivity problems are due to red tape, taxes, and unions. The evidence is clear that their own failure to invest in new capital and new technology explains the stagnation in productivity. Instead of blaming others for this outcome, business leaders need to look in the mirror.”

    The post Failure to Invest in New Tech Damaging Economy, Incomes & Jobs appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

    Stanford highlights seven ways in which the nature of work and employment is demonstrating a fundamental continuity, despite changes in technology and work organisation: ranging from the predominance of wage labour in the economy, to employers’ continuing interest in extracting maximum labour effort for the least possible labour cost.

    “I have started to conclude there is more constancy than change in the world of work. In particular, the central power relationships that shape employment in a capitalist economy are not fundamentally changing: to the contrary, they are being reinforced… As a result, I suspect the future of work will look a lot like its past, at least as it has existed over the past two centuries. Where work is concerned, it is truly a case of ‘back to the future.’”

    Stanford rejects the common assumption that changes in employment relationships (such as the rise of “gig” jobs, and other forms of precarious work) are driven primarily by technology–stressing instead the importance of discrete choices within enterprises and society as a whole about what kinds of technology are developed, and how they are implemented. Improvements in work are certainly possible, but only when workers are able to exert active, organised pressure on employers and governments.

    Please read Stanford’s full commentary, Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss (‘Who’ soundtrack optional!).

    The post Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Future of Work for Australian Graduates

    The world of work is being transformed by a complex and interdependent set of forces – including technology, changes in workplace organisation and employment relationships, environmental and demographic challenges, and more. No group of workers will confront the reality of constant change more directly than young workers. As new entrants to the labour market, they cannot count on the protection of previous structures or practices to insulate them from coming changes. They immediately face the challenges of an increasingly precarious job market – one in which less than half of all employed Australians now fill a traditional “standard” job (full-time, permanent, paid work offering normal entitlements like paid leave and superannuation).

    Holding a university degree is still a vital and valuable asset for young workers entering this challenging and unstable milieu for the first time. Individuals with university degrees are more likely to be employed, to have more stable jobs, and to be paid more. But despite this relative advantage enjoyed by university graduates, employment conditions have become much more challenging even for graduates. Rates of graduate employment in full-time work are down significantly over the past decade, and there is evidence of a growing mismatch and underutilisation of university graduates in positions that do not fully or even partly utilise their hard-won knowledge and skills. At the same time, employer complaints about supposed skills shortages and the dearth of “job-ready” graduates are as loud as ever; the report documents that those complaints need to be interpreted with considerable scepticism.

    Australia’s higher education system could do a much better job at anticipating the needs for highly-skilled workers in the future, evolving their program offerings in light of those needs, and then assisting students as they traverse their university educations and find meaningful, relevant work.

    This comprehensive new report from the Centre for Future Work, developed in conjunction with Graduate Careers Australia (an association that has worked to gather data and make recommendations regarding university graduate employment issues) provides an overview of the prospects and challenges faced by future university graduates. The report confirms that university education makes a vital, essential, and valuable contribution to Australians’ prosperity: both at an individual level for those who have attained higher education, and at the macroeconomic and social level. But it catalogues gaps and failures in crucial education-to-jobs transitions, considers the most likely factors contributing to those gaps and failures (while dispensing with some commonly-cited but unconvincing myths and stereotypes), and makes several concrete recommendations for policy change and innovation.

    Key findings of the report include:

    • Employment outcomes for university graduates have deteriorated notably since the GFC. Full-time work placements have deteriorated (from 85% in 2008 to 73% in 2018, measured by full-time employment 4 months after graduation). Many graduates report being underemployed: both quantitatively (working fewer hours than they want) and qualitatively (in jobs that do not fully or even partially use their hard-won expensive skills), and insecure work has become a big problem for graduates (like for others in the labour market).
    • Employers continue to complain about pressing “skills shortages” hampering their growth opportunities. But careful empirical data suggests this claim is questionable. Reported skills shortages in most occupations have in fact eased considerably since the GFC.
    • Another stereotype not backed up by hard data is the common assumption that STEM and technical skills are in the most short supply, and that STEM graduates will have the best employment outcomes. For example, math grads have one of the worst full-time employment placement rates of any discipline. Employers report they especially seek applicants with verbal, social, problem-solving, and communication skills.
    • Vocational degrees (tied to specific occupations, often regulated – like health care, engineering or teaching) have the best employment placement rates.
    • Therefore, the solution to graduate employment challenges must include better strategies for directly linking degrees to jobs: for example, through paid placements, occupational licensing, and accreditation.
    • Australia’s system for planning skills / higher education / job placement functions is fragmented, and often contradictory. We could learn a lot from other countries (especially in Europe) which have taken a more hands-on and direct approach to forecasting future skill requirements, planning higher education offerings accordingly, and channeling graduates directly into relevant career opportunities.
    • The report makes 9 specific recommendations to improve university-to-work transitions for future graduates, including establishing a national higher education planning capacity, and creating a timely and high-quality labour force information system.
    • An overarching recommendation in the report is a call for a new social compact for universities as major actors in Australia’s skills system. This includes increased public funding for universities attached to requirements for national policy coordination among universities, expanded employment-to-jobs programming, and stronger mechanisms connecting public research to the development of an innovation-intensive, high-value export-oriented industry policy.

    Download the full report, The Future of Work for Australian Graduates: The Changing Landscape of University-Employment Transitions in Australia, by Alison Pennington and Dr. Jim Stanford. There is also a 12-page summary report available for download. The report was commissioned by Graduate Careers Australia.

    The post The Future of Work for Australian Graduates appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Five Contrarian Insights on the Future of Work

    1. Work is not disappearing; it can’t.
    2. Technology is not accelerating.
    3. “Gigs” aren’t even new.
    4. Technology is often more about relationships than productivity.
    5. Skills are not a magic bullet.

    The commentary was prepared for the My Labour, Our Future conference held last month in Montreal, Canada to mark the 100th Anniversary of the founding of the International Labour Organization. We thank the organizers and the Atkinson Foundation for permission to repost the paper.

    The post Five Contrarian Insights on the Future of Work 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.

  • Possibly Surprising Insights on the Future of Work

    His presentation was “5 Possibly Surprising Insights on the Future of Work”.

    More detail on the issues raised in his presentation is provided in the Centre’s recent submission to the Senate Inquiry on the Future of Work and the Future of Workers.

    The post Possibly Surprising Insights on the Future of Work appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.