My Blog

Tag: VIC

  • Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Disadvantaged Jobseekers (VIC)

    Employment policy and employment assistance for jobseekers focus on individuals’ skills and job readiness, and on job placement. Less attention is given to ensuring placements are into sustainable employment in inclusive workplaces. That is, placement into jobs that people can keep, that support wellbeing and provide opportunity for long-term employment pathways, and in workplaces where people feel safe and are able to participate. Recruiting and placing people experiencing labour market disadvantage into jobs may not lead to positive outcomes if people are not able to retain jobs and benefit from their employment.

    Employment can provide people with benefits that improve wellbeing in various ways, including through increasing income, providing routine and increasing social contact. However, where job quality, pay or working conditions are poor, employment can also have cumulative negative effects. Placing people experiencing disadvantage in jobs in which they are insecure, underemployed, or cannot establish daily routines; or placing them in workplaces in which they experience poor or discriminatory treatment and disempowerment, are not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes or create social value.

    This report calls for a greater focus on workplace and job-related factors, including employer knowledge, employment practices, work organisation, job quality and employment arrangements, to addressing barriers to employment for disadvantaged jobseekers. Emphasis on employment placement alone is not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes. Action is required to tackle barriers present in workplaces and in employment arrangements.

    This report was commissioned by Jobsbank, a Victorian-based not-for-profit organisation that works with business and other partners to support sustainable, inclusive employment and make social procurement work. In Victoria, the Government’s Social Procurement Framework aims to improve employment outcomes for people from groups experiencing labour market disadvantage through requiring suppliers and contractors tendering for high value government contracts to employ people from these groups. The Victorian Government’s Fair Jobs Code promotes fair labour standards, secure employment and job security, equity and diversity, and cooperative workplace relationships and workers’ representation. This report recommends that employers be encouraged to develop strategies to meet these standards through collaboration with unions and community groups as one obvious way to address workplace and employment factors that create barriers to sustainable and inclusive employment for disadvantaged jobseekers.

    The post Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Jobseekers Experiencing Disadvantage appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Victorian Rate Cap Policy Costs Economy Over 7,000 jobs and $890 million to GDP

    The Victorian State Government’s policy to cap the rates of local government has cost the Victorian economy 7,425 direct and indirect jobs in 2021-22, and has reduced GDP by up to $890 million in 2021-22, according to new research from the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

    Key Findings

    • The Victorian Government’s rate caps have reduced employment in Victoria (counting both direct local government jobs, and indirect private sector positions) by up to 7425 jobs in 2021-22. They have also reduced GDP by up to $890 million in 2021-22. The costs of suppressed local government revenues, and corresponding austerity in the delivery of local government services, will continue to grow with each passing year if the policy is maintained.
    • Rates on property are the largest single source of revenue to local governments in Victoria. Of total Victorian local government revenue in 2019-20 ($11.7 billion), rates accounted for $5.6 billion or almost half. Since 2016-17, the Victorian state government has capped the amounts local governments can collect from their ratepayers.
    • The rate cap policy, imposed by the Victorian state government on local governments, interferes with the mission of service delivery and expanded, secure employment.
    • The local government sector in Victoria employs about 50,000 people in a wide range of services and occupations, including road planning and maintenance, home and aged care, waste disposal, libraries, childcare, school crossing supervision, maternal and child health, the State Emergency Service, and environmental management.
    • The rate cap policy becomes more restrictive as the overall economy slows rather than less restrictive, since the rate cap is tied to inflation indexes which tend to slow when the economy is weak.
    • The rate caps act as a brake on recovery and growth by embedding a dynamic of self-fulfilling fiscal restraint and austerity.
    • Victoria’s rate cap policy has inhibited a normal trend of expanding and improving local government services in line with population growth, rising living standards, and economic expansion.

    “Rate caps are an arbitrary policy which ties growth in overall rates revenue to price indexes which have nothing to do with demand for services or democratic accountability,” said Dan Nahum, economist at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

    “It’s not even the case that ratepayers necessarily save any money as a result of the rate cap. There has been a shift to other forms of revenue-raising that are less progressive and socially equitable.

    “Rates bills are calculated based on relative property valuations – so even if local governments are collecting less from rates overall than they would in the absence of the cap, if your property value has gone up relative to others in your community, then your rates payments do as well.

    “There is no evidence that rate caps makes local councils ‘more efficient’. Instead, it simply takes money out of much-needed council services and robs local communities of employment opportunities.

    “Far from protecting ratepayers and residents, rate caps hurt them. Rate caps compromise service delivery, negatively impact employment and wages amongst residents employed in the local government sector, result in higher fees collected through other revenue tools, and reduce local government expenditures flowing back into the private sector.

    “There is simply no good economic reason for rate caps. By abolishing the rate caps policy, the Victorian Government could create jobs and stimulate the economy post-COVID.”

    The post Victorian Rate Cap Policy Costs Economy Over 7,000 jobs and $890 million to GDP appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Putting a Cap on Community: Victoria’s Rate Caps (VIC)

    The Victorian Government’s policy of capping of local government rates revenue in Victoria is a regressive move on economic, social and democratic grounds. By arbitrarily tying the growth in total rates revenue in each local government area to price indexes, the state government restricts the ability of local governments to respond to the COVID-19 crisis with expanded, secure employment and service offerings.

    Rates on property are the largest single source of revenue to local governments in Victoria. Of total Victorian local government revenue in 2019-20 ($11.7 billion), rates accounted for $5.6 billion or almost half. Since 2016-17, the Victorian state government has capped the amounts local governments can collect from their ratepayers.

    New research by the Centre for Future Work, commissioned by the Australian Services Union, finds that the imposition of rate caps has cost up to 7425 jobs in 2021-22, counting both direct local government employment and indirect private sector jobs. They have also reduced GDP by up to $890 million in 2021-22. The costs of suppressed local government revenues, and corresponding austerity in the delivery of local government services, will continue to grow with each passing year if the policy is maintained.

    The rate cap policy becomes more restrictive as the overall economy slows, since the rate cap is tied to inflation indexes which tend to slow when the economy is weak.

    The local government sector in Victoria employs about 50,000 people in a wide range of services and occupations, including road planning and maintenance, home and aged care, waste disposal, libraries, childcare, school crossing supervision, maternal and child health, the State Emergency Service, and environmental management.

    The rate caps act as a brake on recovery and growth by embedding a dynamic of self-fulfilling fiscal restraint and austerity. Additionally, there has been a shift to other forms of local government revenue-raising that are less progressive and socially equitable, such as fees and fines.

    Rates bills are calculated based on relative property valuations – so even if local governments are collecting less from rates overall than they would in the absence of the cap, growth in a particular ratepayer’s payments may well exceed the overall cap.

    The rate cap policy inhibits a normal trend of expanding and improving local government services in line with population growth, rising living standards, and economic expansion – as well as interfering with the democratically-expressed preferences of local government voters.

    The post Putting a Cap on Community appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • The Pandemic is Our Clarion Call to Rebuild Good Jobs

    In this commentary, which originally appeared in The Age, Centre for Future Work Senior Economist Alison Pennington discusses what the pandemic reveals about Australia’s high levels of insecure work, new work-from-home risks, and how rebuilding more secure labour markets will be critical to creating more good jobs in our post-COVID recovery.

    The post The Pandemic is Our Clarion Call to Rebuild Good Jobs appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Victorian Inquiry Offers Novel Routes to Regulating Gig Work

    This commentary outlines the key findings of the On-Demand Inquiry.

    Victorian Inquiry Offers Novel Routes to Regulating Gig Work

    Findings from a landmark inquiry commissioned by the Victorian government into the work conditions in the “on demand” (gig) economy have been released. The Inquiry confirms workplace laws have failed to keep pace with economic change.

    Release of the report’s findings are timely with COVID-era unemployment surging and an expanding pool of vulnerable workers relying on “gig” work to meet living costs. How do platform “digital sweatshops” work?

    Platform business models recruit workers without access to secure and better compensated jobs (especially migrant and young workers). Jobs performed are often menial and without adequate safety protections. Gig workers lack stable work schedules or incomes, and receive wages that often fall well-below social norms and legal minimums.

    The major recommendations by the Inquiry chaired by former Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James include:

    • A more systematic application of the “work test” currently used to classify workers as employees or independent contractors by codifying the test in the Fair Work Act (rather than common law). This would create a nationally coherent framework for extending protections including minimum pay and conditions to gig workers genuinely working for another’s business.
    • Alter competition laws and establish a new industry Award to enable gig workers to bargain collectively with platforms.
    • Strengthen the gig work regulatory regime through industry codes of conduct between platforms, governments and unions for non-employee gig workers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and allow an independent tribunal to oversee work status determinations.

    We commend the Inquiry on the ambitious scale of the investigation, and the innovative pathway proposed for gig work regulation.

    Three Centre for Future Work reports on gig work in Australia were cited in the final report. Research by Director Jim Stanford (with Andrew Stewart from University of Adelaide) featured in the report’s major recommendation that collective bargaining rights be extended to gig workers to lift pay and conditions of gig work.

    Read our full submission to the Inquiry — Turning Gigs Into Decent Jobs — by Jim Stanford and Alison Pennington.

    The post Victorian Inquiry Offers Novel Routes to Regulating Gig Work appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Turning Gigs Into Decent Jobs (Victorian On-Demand Workforce)

    The government of Victoria is holding an important inquiry into the conditions and challenges of working in the ‘on-demand’ economy: a polite euphemism for gigs. The Centre for Future Work has made a submission.

    Our submission notes that digitally-mediated on-demand production typically incorporates five broad characteristics:

    • Work is performed on an on-demand or as-needed basis. Producers only work when their services are immediately required, and there is no guarantee of ongoing engagement.
    • Work is compensated on a piece-work basis. Producers are paid for each discrete task or unit of output, not for their time.
    • Producers are required to supply their own capital equipment. This typically includes providing the place where work occurs (their home, their car, etc.), as well as any tools, equipment and materials utilised directly in production. Because individual workers’ financial capacity to provide these up-front investments is limited, the capital requirements of platform work (at least that used directly by workers) are small.
    • The entity organising the work is distinct from the end-user or final consumer of the output, implying a triangular relationship between the producer, the end-user, and the intermediary.
    • Finally, some form of digital intermediation is utilised to commission the work, engage the producer, supervise it, deliver it to the final customer, and facilitate payment. In the modern economy, this last criteria is hardly exrtaordinary: virtually any job imaginable today relies on some form of digital task allocation or management.

    Despite the media hype which on-demand platforms have generated, the scale of employment engaged in on-demand work so far is rather modest. The number of people engaged in actual productive work organised through a digital platform is small (less than 1% of the labour force), and a large (likely majority) proportion of those rely on on-demand work for only a minority of their total income. Many people have signed up to perform work through one or more of these platforms, but do not stay with the platform long, and/or do not work many hours in the role.

    Another stereotype that needs to be challenged in considering on-demand work is the common claim that these employment practices are novel and innovative. Here it is crucial to distinguish between the technical innovations which these businesses utilise, and the changes in work organisation which those models also introduce. In fact, the major organisational features of digital platform work are not new at all. These practices have been used regularly in labour markets for hundreds of years; what is novel is the use of digital technologies for organising, supervising, and compensating work in that manner. And the growth of insecure or precarious work practices is not an essentially technology-driven phenomenon. Rather, the growing precarity of work, including in digitally-mediated on-demand jobs, reflects the evolution of social relationships and power balances, more than technological innovation in its own right. Appreciating the social and regulatory dimensions of technology and work organisation contributes to a more holistic and balanced understanding of the rise of on-demand work, its consequences, and its potential remedies.

    All the core features associated with on-demand work are long-standing. The practice of on-call or contingent labour – whereby workers are employed only when directly needed – has been common for hundreds of years. In an Australian context, a famous example is the former practice of dockworkers lining up each morning (for example, along Sydney’s ‘Hungry Mile’) in hopes of attaining employment that day; other examples are common in other sectors (including minerals, forestry, manufacturing, and agriculture).

    Home-based work, and other systems in which workers supply their own capital equipment, have also been common in many applications and contexts – from the ‘putting out’ system for manufacturing textile products and housewares in the early years of the industrial revolution, to the important role played by owner-operators in many modern industries (including transportation, resources, fisheries, and personal services).

    Piece-work compensation systems also have a long if uneven history. Employers have long aimed to tie compensation directly to output (as a way of shifting responsibility for managing work effort and productivity onto workers). Yet at the same time, the use of piece-work is constrained by numerous well-known problems, including difficulties in applying them in situations which require an emphasis on quality, not just quantity of output (like most service sector activities), and where work is performed jointly by teams or larger groups of workers.

    Finally, the triangular relationship that is evident in the on-demand economy between the worker/producer, the ultimate end-user of their labour (whether a business or a consumer), and an intermediary/‘middleman’ business is also very familiar from economic history. Past examples include labour hire services, “gang-masters,” and other forms of labour supply intermediation. Under this triangulated model of employment, it can be unclear who is the actual ‘employer’; this ambiguity opens the possibility for various negative practices and outcomes, which have been recognised for years in legislation, regulation, and jurisprudence. An example is Australia’s long-standing rules regarding ‘sham contracting’, and more recent initiatives to regulate labour hire businesses in Queensland and Victoria.

    In short, the core features of on-demand work are not novel; and claims that this way of organising work is ‘new’ are not valid. Rather, on-demand businesses reflect a resurgence of very old business practices, that date back hundreds of years. So ‘gig’ employers cannot be allowed to invoke claims of technological advancement, to justify work practices that are hundreds of years old – and in many cases violate community standards and traditional labour laws.

    The post Turning ‘Gigs’ Into Decent Jobs appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Are States Filling the Democratic Void?

    The recent Victorian election results showed Australian voters want governments to play a pro-active role delivering public services, infrastructure, improved labour standards, and sustainability. They showed that in a time of deep cynicism with federal politics, States (and Territories) can play an important role filling the democratic void left by dysfunction and policy paralysis at the Commonwealth level.

    This commentary from Alison Pennington, economist at the Centre for Future Work, explores what the energetic campaign in Victoria revealed about our unique system of dual governance and the potential for pro-active and progressive policy making. This commentary was originally published in New Matilda.

    The Victorian election: Are states filling the democratic void?

    A destructive and cynical politics is on the rise across the world with emergent right-wing populism a warning of what happens when people lose faith in political institutions.

    In Australia, the Coalition government has been characterised by ongoing austerity, the retrenchment of public resources and capability to the tune of billions of dollars, but complete paralysis on just about every other policy reform (most visibly including massive inconsistency on energy and climate policy). This has led to a democratic void in Australian society.

    Meanwhile, the recent victory of the Andrews Labor government on a bold social democratic platform of long-term investments in services, education and infrastructure projects (some with a 2050 completion date) gave Victorians a secure, positive vision of a more balanced, stable society – and voters endorsed that vision strongly.

    How is it that these two wildly different scenarios of political life can exist alongside each other?

    Many commentators have explained the Victorian election result as a mere by-product of the Coalition’s ongoing crisis (with subsequent warnings about the future of the federal Liberals). But this suggests Victorians were motivated by cynicism alone. In reality, Victorians rallied enthusiastically around a constructive, hopeful vision of State-level policy-making. Indeed, since federation, Australian communities and regions who have identified needs and desires unmet by the Commonwealth, have often turned to the state level of governance to get things done.

    The unique organisation of governance in Australia, featuring a Commonwealth composed of somewhat independent States and Territories, has preserved a realm of Australian democracy distinct from the national level of affairs. At a time of deep cynicism with federal politics, the Victorian election result shows that States can fill the democratic void left by dysfunction and tribal politics at the Commonwealth level, strengthening Australian democracy and saving it from the worst of cynical politics we see emerging elsewhere (such as Trumpism in the US).

    Where does the legitimacy of this State-based democracy come from? Despite losing (or handing over) many of their powers to the Commonwealth over time, States still retain power to administer the key public goods that Australians most value: like education, health care, civic services, and culture. These are the functions of government that people will energetically defend when they are undermined.

    While the Australian constitution allocates responsibility for big-ticket public programs like healthcare and education to the States, the Commonwealth retains powers to raise the bulk of the revenue needed to fund these expensive services. This means States operate in a contradictory financial bind: always dependent on the federal government to honour the financing of essential services that the States are constitutionally bound to provide. This gives enormous economic and political power to federal governments— a power play that has been repeated many times over Australia’s history.

    For example, a recent attempt by the Commonwealth to undermine the funding of public goods under the ‘spend within your means’ mantra was mounted in 2016, when Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison tried to shift responsibility for raising revenue for public services to States. This was done without relinquishing any of the Commonwealth’s income and corporate taxation powers – all the while overseeing billions of dollars in cuts in healthcare and education in the federal Budget.

    But the constitutional and financial bind faced by State governments has gained particular significance in recent years, as decades of ‘small government’ policies wound back public services in favour of highly-subsidised private models have come to a head. Publicly-subsidised private markets in aged care, disability care, healthcare, education, VET and childcare have all been proven failures: both in the quality of services delivered, and in the standards of employment for those doing the work.

    Recent polling by the Australian Institute shows that 64 per cent of Australians want an increase in public spending funded by tax revenue from wealthy individuals and high-turnover businesses. Australians value government provision of public goods, even more than personal income tax cuts. The failure of federally-backed market experiments within spheres of life where Australians demand a proactive and productive government role, has left the political field wide open – and States are in prime strategic political terrain to fill that space.

    State action is applauded in the face of Commonwealth inaction. For instance, amidst recent turmoil in federal energy and climate policy, the Victorian, SA and ACT governments have proactively invested in renewable energy industries. And State governments in Victoria, SA, ACT and QLD have found innovative work-arounds to protect workers from new exploitative labour practices, despite the dominance of the Commonwealth in the jurisdiction of labour law: including labour hire licencing schemes, mandated minimum pay and safety conditions, and a new inquiry just launched into on-demand ‘gig’ work and its implications for the Victorian economy.

    The Victorian election results provide another clear insight into what Australians value and what they will tolerate. They confirm that Australians care about a fair society – underpinned by the public provision of healthcare and education (including a revamped TAFE sector), new infrastructure, action on renewable energy, and employment conditions that allow Australians to live a decent quality life.

    With the Andrews government’s pledges for sizeable investments in all of these endeavours ratified so strongly by voters, it shows that the failure of Commonwealth policy and politics can be mitigated by popular, publicly-minded campaigns at the State level.

    A future federal government could build on the example set by the Victorian election. It could use its much stronger policy and fiscal levers to charter a course that addresses the growing labour market power imbalances, restores the billions cut from hospitals, schools and housing, prepares our economy for a renewable energy future, and delivers a comprehensive program of tax reform.

    But until that decisive break with the failed austerity and cynicism of recent federal politics, the Victorian election results confirm that in the meantime, States can step firmly into the breach. They can and must continue to function as a key site for the expression of Australians’ demands for a more equal, inclusive, participatory society, with a proactive role for government in delivering public goods.

    The post Are States Filling the Democratic Void? appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.