Tag: Insecure & Precarious Work

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.

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.