Author: annamations

  • Profile: Combining Economics and Social Justice

    Profile: Combining Economics and Social Justice

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work’s Director Dr. Jim Stanford was recently profiled in a feature article published in In The Black, the journal of CPA Australia (the professional body for certified accountants in Australia). The profile, by journalist Johanna Leggatt, discusses the history of the Centre for Future Work, and Stanford’s philosophy of using popular economic knowledge to strengthen movements for social change and workers’ rights.

    We are pleased to reprint (download below), with kind permission from In the Black, this profile, titled The People’s Economist. Many thanks to the journal and to Ms. Leggatt for the generous article!


    Related documents



    Full article

    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • A Women’s Agenda for COVID-Era Reconstruction

    A Women’s Agenda for COVID-Era Reconstruction

    by Alison Pennington

    Share

    Women have been uniquely and disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting recession: losing more jobs and hours, shouldering a higher unpaid caring work burden, and undertaking essential and frontlines jobs. Without targeted action to rebuild women’s jobs and ease caring demands, decades of collective advances toward decent paid work could be eroded.

    Alison Pennington, Senior Economist with the Centre for Future Work assisted The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) preparing the timely report Leaving Women Behind: The Real Cost of the COVID Recovery. The report documents the gendered impacts of the crisis and the federal government’s COVID-era policies, and outlines a public investment strategy to undo the damage of the crisis, and ensure women play an equal role in an inclusive economic recovery.

    To mark the release of ACTU’s report, the Australian Trade Union Institute hosted a webinar with ACTU President Michele O’Neil, Centre for Future Work’s Alison Pennington, Karen Batt (CPSU VIC), Helen Gibbons (UWU) and Julia Fox (SDA). The session presented the main report findings and considered how they might support campaigns for a gender-inclusive recovery.

    The full 38-page ACTU report is available below together with Alison’s presentation slides presented for the ATUI webinar.


    Related documents



    Leaving women behind report



    Presentation slides

    You might also like

    Austerity Threatens Women’s Access to Paid Work

    by Alison Pennington in The New Daily

    Women have suffered the worst labour market impacts since the shutdowns. Gender-unequal impacts have been due to women’s greater exposure to customer-facing industries shut down first by public health orders, higher employment intensity in insecure and part-time positions, and an increased caring burden unmet by the state. But instead of providing countervailing support, the federal government is accelerating women’s work crisis.

  • Porter IR Bill a Wish List for Business

    Originally published in The Conversation on December 9, 2020

    Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter tabled an omnibus bill on 9 December containing multiple amendments to Australia’s labour laws, including the Fair Work Act. In theory, the bill is the outcome of a series of IR reform discussions the government launched during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time it heralded a new spirt of cooperation between business, unions, and the government — but that spirit didn’t last long. The bill accepts numerous business demands that will further liberalise casual work, undermine genuine collective bargaining, and generally suppress wages even more than they already are.

    This commentary is a longer version of an assessment of the new legislation prepared by Jim Stanford (originally published in The Conversation).

    We Were In This Together… For a Very Short Time

    By Jim Stanford

    “We are all in this together,” Prime Minister Morrison solemnly intoned to Parliament in April. And during those first frightening weeks of the pandemic, there was a brief moment when it seemed like Australia’s industrial relations protagonists actually believed it. For a short time, businesses, unions, and government put aside their usual differences and worked together to get through this existential threat. For example, they negotiated quick agreements to alter dozens of Modern Awards and enterprise agreements, adjusting rules and rosters to help keep Australians on the job.

    Then, building on that spirit of cooperation, the government kicked off a new process to seek consensus around further improvements to workplace laws. The government abandoned its pre-COVID effort to impose harsh new restrictions on unions. Instead, five tables were established with business, union, and government leaders, debating reforms to improve the fairness and efficiency of the IR system. Some observes even smelled a new era of Accord-making in the wind.

    Well, the Kumbaya moment didn’t last long. Within weeks the parties retreated to their corners and their standard speaking points. No meaningful consensus emerged on any issue from any table. Even tentative proposals – like an idea, supported by unions and the Business Council, to combine fast-track approval of union-negotiated enterprise agreements with greater flexibility in determining their suitability – were shot down in partisan gunfire by the more strident business lobbyists.

    Now, in the absence of consensus, the government has picked up its traditional hymn book and is once again singing the praises of ‘flexibility’ and deunionisation. IR Minister Christian Porter tabled a series of changes in Parliament Wednesday that will further skew the already lopsided balance of power between employers and workers.

    The government didn’t just take business’s side in the debates at those 5 discussion tables: it went even further. One of the biggest changes in the new legislation (suspending rules that prevent enterprise agreements from undercutting the minimum standards of Modern Awards) wasn’t even discussed at the IR tables. This confirms that the IR gloves are off once again.

    If passed in the Senate, Porter’s omnibus bill will reset several aspects of current labour relations:

    Suspending the BOOT: At present, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) must ensure enterprise agreements (EAs) do not undercut minimum standards guaranteed in the Modern Awards. The new legislation instructs the FWC to approve EAs even if they fail this ‘Better Off Overall Test’ (BOOT), so long as the deal is nominally supported by affected workers (more on this below) and deemed to be in the ‘public interest.’ It is important to remember that Australia (unique among industrial countries) allows employers to implement EAs unilaterally, without any involvement by a union. The BOOT is thus necessary to prevent EAs (especially non-union EAs) from undermining workers’ minimum rights. Porter’s suspension of the BOOT is planned for two years. But even if it is restored after that (which is uncertain), EAs negotiated during that window will remain in effect for years afterward. Even after they expire, under Australian law they remain in effect until replaced with new EAs, or terminated by the FWC – neither of which is likely in non-union settings.

    EA Approval Process: Anticipating that non-BOOT-compliant EAs will be actively opposed by unions, Porter’s legislation includes complementary measures aimed at speeding those deals through the FWC. Unions will be restricted from intervening around EAs they were not involved in negotiating – even non-union EAs where no union was involved. And the process must normally be completed within 21 days, thus limiting opportunities for affected workers to learn about and resist sub-Award provisions.

    Defining Casual Work: The growing use of casual labour was a hot topic at the IR reform tables. Porter’s legislation clarifies the definition of casual work in the most expansive way possible: a casual job is any position deemed casual by the employer, and accepted by the worker, for which there is no promise of regular continuing employment. In other words, any job can be casual, so long as workers are desperate enough to accept it. This will foster the further spread of casual labour. Most important, it removes a big potential liability faced by employers as a result of recent court decisions, under which they might have owed back-pay for holidays and sick leave to casual staff who worked regular shifts.

    Casualising Part-Timers: Further casualisation will be attained through new rules regarding rosters and hours for permanent part-time workers. Porter’s bill would extend flexibility provisions originally implemented earlier this year – during that brief moment of pandemic-induced cooperation. The rules allow employers to alter hours for regular part-timers without incurring overtime penalties or other costs (currently required under some Modern Awards). This will allow employers to effectively use part-time workers as yet another form of casual, just-in-time labour.

    Long-Term Project Agreements: Finally, Porter has granted one more big wish from the business list: allowing super-long enterprise agreements at major new projects. Agreements would last for up to eight years, and can be signed, sealed and delivered before any workers start on the job (thus denying them any input into the process). Under the revised BOOT provisions, they could also undercut the minimum standards of the Awards.

    These changes are being advertised as a boost for post-pandemic job-creation, but this claim is hollow. In fact, the changes in part-time and casual rules will actually discourage new hiring: since existing workers can be costlessly flexed in line with employer needs, there is no need to hire anyone else. Weaker BOOT protections will spur a wave of new EAs: most union-free, and aimed at reducing (not raising) compensation and standards. This makes a mockery of the goals of collective bargaining, and grants Australian employers further opportunity to suppress labour costs (already tracking at their slowest pace in postwar history).

    So what do we make of that short-lived spirit of togetherness which purportedly sparked this whole process? In retrospect, it seems to have been just an opportunity for Coalition leaders to pose as visionary statesmen during a time of crisis. Now, mere months later, the government is back to its old script – and the pandemic is just another excuse to scapegoat unions, drive down wages, and fatten business profits.


    You might also like

    IR Bill Will Cut Wages & Accelerate Precarity

    by Alison Pennington in Jacobin

    The Morrison government has proposed sweeping changes to labour laws that will expand unilateral employer power to cut wages and freely deploy casual labour. Together, the Coalition’s proposed changes will accelerate the incidence of insecure work, undermine genuine collective bargaining, and suppress wages growth. Impacts will be felt across the entire workforce – casual and permanent workers alike.

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • Heat Stress and Work in the Era of Climate Change

    Heat Stress and Work in the Era of Climate Change

    What We Know, and What We Need to Learn
    by Elizabeth Humphrys, Freya Newman and James Goodman

    New research has confirmed that climate change is contributing to the growing problem of heat stress in a wide range of Australian workplaces.

    This report provides first-hand accounts of dangerous levels of heat stress experienced in a range of occupations – including construction, outdoor maintenance work, and food delivery riders.

    The report, by a team of authors based at the Climate Justice Research Centre at UTS in Sydney, interviewed workers and trade union officials in several industries, and confirmed that working in excess heat is becoming a more common occupational health and safety risk. The report documents the negative effects of excess heat on physical health, mental alertness, and stress. It also compiled an inventory of union initiatives and workplace best practices for reducing and manage the risks of heat stress.

    Key findings:

    • Heat stress poses serious health and safety risks for many workers across Australia, and Australia must act on the causes of rising temperatures and changing weather patterns.
    • Four key groups of workers are at high risk of heat stress:
      • Workers who work inside, in environments with poor climate control, or whose work requires them to be exposed to heat and humidity;
      • Outdoor workers, especially those who are weather-exposed;
      • Workers moving between different climates as part of their work (i.e., moving between extreme heat and cold); and
      • Workers whose roles expose them to situational extreme heat, such as emergency workers and firefighters.
    • Current labour protections, including health and safety laws, are inadequate.
      • Many workers say that OHS policies might appear to offer protection, but in practice it is simply not the case.
      • Workers say that employers do not want work to stop even when heat stress risk is very high, and that employers priorise productivity over worker health and safety.
      • The hazardous heatwaves, air quality, and bushfire smoke over the recent Black Summer has emphasised the inadequacy of current OHS regulations.
    • The conditions of a person’s employment fundamentally shape their experience of heat stress. Workers who are employed casually, who work in labour hire arrangements, or who are gig workers, often have less capacity to take action on the effects of heat stress.
    • Recommendations include:
      • The Australian Federal and State Governments must urgently review the management of the current and likely impacts of climate change for workers, and develop national and state-based regulatory frameworks that provide strong protection in relation to heat stress and bushfire smoke.
      • Governments and employers must be required to provide adequate resourcing for at-risk workers.
      • Policymakers should strengthen current laws to ensure workers do not lose income when unable to work due to heat stress.

    “Last year’s devastating Black Summer bushfires highlighted that for many workers across Australia, appropriate policies and plans are not always in place to ensure that they are protected from dangerous heat stress related conditions that could cause illness or injury to themselves or others,” said Dr. Elizabeth Humphrys, associate at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work and co-author of the report.

    “Workers need to be afforded greater protections to ensure their health and safety are paramount in extreme heat conditions. Our research shows that current workplace conditions are woefully inadequate, while climate change will only serve to make conditions worse.

    “To protect workers and the wider community, not only must policymakers act to mitigate the impacts of heat stress, but they must also act on the causes of the climate heating, itself.”

    “Our research shows that while existing OHS rules are supposed to protect workers against heat stress in theory, in practice those standards are not adequate, and they are poorly enforced.”

    “Many workers say that employers do not want work to stop even when heat stress is very high, and that employers prioritise productivity over workers’ health.”

    “Improving workplace practices for identifying and managing heat stress, and empowering workers to refuse work under unsafe heat conditions, must be urgent priorities for employers, trade unions, and regulators.”



    Full report

    Share

  • Work and Life in a Pandemic

    Work and Life in a Pandemic

    An Update on Hours of Work and Unpaid Overtime Under COVID-19
    by Dan Nahum

    2020 marks the twelfth annual Go Home on Time Day, an initiative of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute that shines a spotlight on overwork among Australians, including excessive overtime that is often unpaid.

    It has been an extraordinary and difficult year, to say the least. Many workers are doing at least some of their work from home, and the standard scenario of ‘staying late at the office’ around which we have often shaped our Go Home On Time Day analysis in the past applies to fewer workers than usual. But that is not to say that workers aren’t doing work for free—in fact, the estimated incidence of ‘time theft’, or unpaid overtime, has gone up compared with 2019 (see our results here). And in many cases people’s responsibilities in their home lives have increased in response to the health and social crisis, accentuating the double burden faced by workers—and especially by women workers.

    Survey data suggests the average Australian worker puts in 5.3 hours per week of unpaid overtime, despite the shift towards home work. Many employers expect this free labour as a sign of workers’ “dedication”, but it’s unfair and in many cases illegal. Across the whole labour market, this theft of workers’ time now amounts to almost three billion hours, or $100 billion, per year. In an environment of depressed household demand and purchasing power, this has extraordinarily damaging consequences throughout the economy—including throughout the business sector.

    Additionally, 70% of people working at home are doing some of it outside of normal working hours. The post-COVID rise in home work may constitute a further incursion of work into people’s personal time, and a further undercutting of Australia’s minimum standards around employment (including hours, overtime, and penalty rates).



    Full report

    Share

  • The Choices We Make

    The Choices We Make

    The Economic Future of Tasmania
    by Dan Nahum

    New research by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work analyses the economic effects of COVID-19 on Tasmania, and suggests how Tasmania can ‘build back better’ out of the COVID-19 crisis, making key recommendations to help Tasmania avoid the mistakes made at the Federal level. Ahead of Tasmania’s State Budget, set to be delivered on 12 November 2020, in this new report the Centre for Future Work has explored what the shape of Tasmania’s economy could look like, and how it can recover and reconstruct after this pandemic.

    Businesses and households will not simply ‘regain confidence’ and drive a full recovery themselves. Indeed, Tasmania’s proactive and protective fiscal response indicates that the state government already understands that major support from government is necessary. As a proportion of the state’s gross state product, Tasmania has committed the largest amount of funding of any state. Meanwhile, extremely low borrowing costs mean that there is no reason for the state government not to undertake a more proactive role in the economy than it has done historically, even if that means higher deficits.

    However, a short-term, counter-cyclic approach does not adequately respond to the full scope of the challenge. The underlying working machinery of the economy is not in good order. COVID-19 has highlighted existing vulnerabilities and created new ones, and it has also limited the scope of the private sector to respond.

    The state government in Tasmania will clearly be required to play a hands-on, leading role in job creation, investment and income generation for years to come, and it will need to borrow to do so. This fact should not be feared, but celebrated: large deficits are the flipside of the public investment that will be required to undertake Tasmania’s reconstruction. It will be necessary to mobilise economic resources, to meet human needs and to get Tasmanians working again—especially if the intention is to build a more resilient and diverse economy than the one that existed before COVID-19.

    The Tasmanian economy will not have the same shape as it did before the pandemic. Tasmania can and must think differently about what is possible. Our purpose in this research paper is to add momentum to Tasmania’s conversation about its economic, and social, future. As a result of COVID-19, Tasmania could push itself forward into the next stage of its economic development, or it could, alternatively, spiral into a depression, scarring lives and communities. It cannot afford that. Tasmanians, moreover, deserve far better.

    The report recommends:

    • the Tasmanian Government make a larger investment in public housing
    • the State Government also expand public sector investment into the health, aged and disability care sectors
    • outsourced public sector functions should be returned to direct provision by Government wherever possible, to improve cost, accountability and quality
      • doing so will also provide the State Government with a lever to improve wages and conditions across the economy, especially in sectors dominated by women
    • the Tasmanian Government should also support and co-invest in several strategic industries, including manufacturing and renewable manufacturing, tourism and hospitality, arts and entertainment, food production, and higher education.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Pandemic is Our Clarion Call to Rebuild Good Jobs

    Originally published in The Age on November 5, 2020

    Victorians emerging from lockdowns now confront Australia’s harsh COVID-era work reality marked by more insecure jobs, mass unemployment, and long-term work at the kitchen table.

    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.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

  • Feature Interviews: Worker Voice in a Changing World of Work

    Feature Interviews: Worker Voice in a Changing World of Work

    by Jim Stanford and Alison Pennington

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work’s Jim Stanford, and Alison Pennington feature in a collection of interviews on technology, work, climate, and the role of unions, for a new online course Power, Politics and Influence at Work delivered by the University of Manchester, UK.

    Video recordings of the interviews are available here:

    The videos were recorded for a 5-week on-line course Power, Politics and Influence at Work run by the University of Manchester. The Centre’s staff are featured alongside several leading scholars, trade union activists and international agencies such as the ILO/Oxfam.

    Academics and researchers Tony Dundon, Miguel Martinez Lucio, Emma Hughes and Roger Walden designed the course for labour and NGO activists and students interested in labour market equalities, work and employment. Registration is free.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

    IR Bill Will Cut Wages & Accelerate Precarity

    by Alison Pennington in Jacobin

    The Morrison government has proposed sweeping changes to labour laws that will expand unilateral employer power to cut wages and freely deploy casual labour. Together, the Coalition’s proposed changes will accelerate the incidence of insecure work, undermine genuine collective bargaining, and suppress wages growth. Impacts will be felt across the entire workforce – casual and permanent workers alike.

  • Budget’s Illusory Hope for Business-Led Recovery

    Budget’s Illusory Hope for Business-Led Recovery

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    The Commonwealth government tabled its 2020-21 budget on 6 October, six months later than the usual timing because of the dramatic events associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting recession. There is no doubt it is a budget unlike any other in Australia’s postwar history. While the budget certainly unleashes unprecedented fiscal power, its underlying logic and specific policy design are unsatisfactory in many ways. We present here analysis and commentary on several aspects of the budget, drawing on input from all of the Centre’s research staff: Economist and Director Dr. Jim Stanford, Senior Economist Alison Pennington, and Economist Dan Nahum.

    Key conclusions of our analysis include:

    • This budget says explicitly that Australia’s economic reconstruction after COVID-19 is to be trusted almost entirely to private business – helped along with generous tax cuts and business subsidies.
    • The need to strengthen public services (like health care, child care, and higher and vocational education) is largely ignored, as is the need to preserve and strengthen income security programs (with the phase-out of JobKeeper and cuts to JobSeeker going ahead).
    • Tax cuts, whether targeted at businesses or high-income households, will have little impact on actual spending and job-creation.
    • The government needs a more forceful, hands-on, and sustained reconstruction plan to ensure that the economy does not get ‘stuck’ in its current state of partial recovery. That needs much more public sector leadership, vision, and funding.
    • The government admits that wage growth is going to get weaker before it gets stronger – but is doing nothing about that critical problem (which will undermine consumer spending far more than tax cuts will stimulate it).

    Download our full review of the 2020-21 budget below.


    Related documents



    2020-21 Budget Analysis

    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • Public Service in Challenging Times

    Public Service in Challenging Times

    The Economic and Social Value of Public Sector Work in Queensland
    by Dan Nahum

    In times of crisis, governments have a responsibility to their citizens to maintain and expand their role in the economy – for both economic and social reasons. This responsibility has never been clearer than during the current COVID-19 pandemic, and its associated economic downturn. Australians are counting on their governments to protect them from the pandemic, support them through the resulting recession, and play a leading role in rebuilding a stronger, healthy society in the aftermath of this unprecedented catastrophe.

    Moreover, the economic benefits of providing those essential services spread throughout the state economy, supporting jobs and incomes including in the private sector.

    In the context of the upcoming Queensland election, research from the Centre for Future Work shows that in addition to some 331,000 direct jobs providing broader state-funded public services, 150,000 private sector positions depend on the economic stimulus provided by public sector work. In total, some 480,000 positions are supported, directly and indirectly, thanks to the provision of state-funded public services in Queensland. In particular, regional and remote Queensland depends on the public sector as a crucial source of decent, socially valuable jobs, performed by well-qualified people, earning (and spending) middle-class incomes in their regional communities.

    Cutting public sector jobs and wages not only directly affects their own economic fortunes, but also negatively impacts the broader economy through spillover reductions in demand, spending, and production. To dramatise these broader economic consequences, this report describes simulations of two possible three-year austerity scenarios:

    • A one-year ‘freeze’ in aggregate public sector payrolls (considering both wages and staff levels).
    • A one-year 5% ‘cut’ in aggregate public sector payrolls (effected through some combination of wage and staff cuts).

    Over three years, the ‘freeze’ scenario reduces total GDP by a cumulative total of over $9 billion: including the loss of incomes for state public servants, and the resulting loss of income and output in the whole range of consumer goods and services industries which depend on the consumer spending of public sector workers. This decline in GDP translates into the loss of 20,000 person-years of employment in the private sector industries which are hurt by the freeze. Over a similar three-year period, the ‘cut’ scenario would reduce cumulative GDP by $15 billion, and eliminate some 35,500 person-years of employment in private-sector goods and services industries.

    In this unprecedented moment, the maintenance of public services (and supporting the jobs that depend directly and indirectly on those services) is surely a more urgent priority than cutting government spending in pursuit of some illusory fiscal target.



    Full report

    Share