My Blog

Category: Future of Work

  • Solving the crisis: Raising the living standards of Australian workers

    Employment & Unemployment, Future of Work, Inequality, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights, Social Security & Welfare, Unions & Collective Bargaining, Wages & Entitlements

    Solving the crisis: Raising the living standards of Australian workers

    by Lisa Heap

    Author

    Lisa Heap

    Senior Researcher

    Media release



    Feeling hopeless? You’re not alone. The untold story behind Australia’s plummeting standard of living

    Productivity might be the word on everyone’s lips in the lead up to the Albanese Government’s Economic Reform Roundtable  however weak productivity isn’t the cause of many of the problems experience by workers in Australia today nor is increasing productivity the solution. Rapid inflation after the pandemic, combined with rising interest rates and slow wage growth, left many Australian households struggling to afford necessities. The Reserve Bank’s (RBA) blunt strategy of raising interest rates to slow the economy post the pandemic both misdiagnosed the drivers of inflation and harmed Australian workers who struggled to manage increased mortgage repayments and other debts. The root causes of Australia’s post pandemic crisis—rising corporate profits, unjustifiable price hikes, and deep wage stagnation were ignored by the RBA.

    Despite a reduction in inflation and interest rates, too many Australians are still experiencing lower living standards after the turbulent events of the past five years. Official inflation figures may capture broad economic trends however, they do not adequately describe the real pressures experienced by working people—particularly when it comes to the impact of the increasing costs of essentials like food, housing, and energy. Australian workers can ill afford another round of RBA driven unemployment, austerity, and uncertainty.

    What will it take to repair the damage to Australian workers’ living standards?

    In a new publication, Solving the Crisis: Raising the Living standards of Australian workers, some of Australia’s leading progressive economists and social policy analysts explain what is going on and how to fix it. The origins of the current crisis in living standards are documented. A progressive policy agenda for a second term Albanese Government is advanced.

    The multidimensional policy agenda in Solving the Crisis calls for

    • increases in real wages
    • achieving full employment
    • better quality jobs and greater assistance and respect for those seeking employment
    • strengthening public services (including health care, childcare, aged care and education)
    • making fair and affordable housing available
    • developing a well-planned and supported transition to renewable energy sources.

    The key to the success of this agenda is centering the experience of workers’ and their families.

    Australia should adopt a progressive multidimensional economic agenda that lifts living standards, reduces inequality, and strengthens democracy, rather than a narrow concentration on productivity. Uniting people behind this progressive economic agenda helps counter the trend towards increasing inequality, division and conflict, that has been present in other countries.

    How to solve the living standards crisis

    Four policy papers are the core of  Solving the Crisis. These papers examine the main drivers of inequality and deteriorating living standards in Australia

    • Greg Jericho examines how inflation is misunderstood when disconnected from wage growth. He proposes a shift in Reserve Bank policy and a renewed focus on promoting real wage increases.
    • Peter Davidson  argues that growing inequality is not inevitable. Through strengthening the four key policy pillars – income support, minimum wages, full employment, and employment services – minimum incomes can be raised and inequality reduced.
    • Thomas Greenwell highlights how decades of declining collective bargaining and high underemployment have undermined living standards. He calls for renewed support for unions, stronger collective bargaining systems, and a focus on full employment in macroeconomic policy.
    • Charlie Joyce revisits the concept of the social wage—and argues that rebuilding and expanding the social wage can raise living standards, promote inclusion, and restore trust in democratic institutions.

    Together these papers provide practical policy solutions forming a platform for economic reform.

    Solving the Crisis helps working people to help cut through economic misinformation and political spin, offering a clear lens on the structural factors that have driven inequality and declining living standards.

    Progress is happening

    In its first term the Albanese Government has made cautious progress on living standards. This progress includes labour market reforms that have contributed to stronger wage growth. These reforms include supporting increases in the minimum wage, facilitating collective bargaining in hard-to-organise industries, funding support for wage increase in early childhood education and aged care. Cost-of-living measures, like energy rebates and expanded renter assistance, also provide important support to hard-hit households. Meanwhile, the easing of interest rates by the RBA—better late than never, may support future growth and job-creation.

    However, while prices are growing more slowly, the levels of many prices remain too high—especially for necessities like food, housing, and energy. Wages growth may have commenced however at the current pace, it will take several years to repair real wages, and restore the same purchasing power for workers they enjoyed before the pandemic. The quality of public services (another critical determinant of living standards) has been damaged by underfunding and overreliance on privatised provision, the costs of which we are currently seeing in early childhood education and care. Minimum income payments such as Jobseeker remain woefully inadequate. The system designed to support and assist people from unemployment into decent jobs is broken beyond repair. Meanwhile, global economic and geopolitical uncertainty threatens to derail this modest recovery before it really gets going.

    More work to be done

    At the 2025 federal election the Australian people rejected political parties proposing cuts to public services, short-term fixes (like petrol tax cuts), and the politics of division. In its second term the Albanese Government has a unique opportunity to implement progressive policy changes such as those contained in Solving the Crisis.

    More details about Solving the Crisis and additional resources are available at https://www.carmichaelcentre.org.au/living_standards.



    Solving the Crisis: Raising the living standards of Australian workers

    Share

  • Briefing Paper: Restoring public sector capability through investment in public service employees

    Employment & Unemployment, Future of Work, Gender at Work, Governance & Government Agencies, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights, Public Sector, Procurement & Privatisation

    Briefing Paper: Restoring public sector capability through investment in public service employees

    by Lisa Heap

    Author

    Lisa Heap

    Senior Researcher

    The Australian Public Service (APS) is responsible for delivering some of the most crucial social services to all Australians. The APS workforce includes employees who deliver frontline services like in Medicare and Centrelink, those who administer the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and those who assist service personnel and veterans via Veterans Affairs. These are just some of the functions that APS employees undertake. Behind front line service delivery staff are employees who support these staff, work to coordinate and integrate services and provide policy and regulatory advice to government.

    This briefing paper examines the make-up of the APS and considers recent efforts to improve APS service delivery. We conclude that recent investment in the employment of more APS employees has improved service delivery and that any reduction in APS employees will reduce service delivery or result in the engagement of more consultants and contractors.

    In this paper we debunk several of the myths promoted in the political debate around the size of Australia’s public service. One such myth is that Australia’s public service is “bloated” or “inefficient”. The research also found that despite claims to the contrary, most of the public service jobs created since 2022 were not based in Canberra.



    Restoring public sector capability through investment in public service employees

    Share

  • Taking up the Right to Disconnect? Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime

    Employment & Unemployment, Future of Work

    Taking up the Right to Disconnect? Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime

    Go Home on Time Day 2024 Update
    by Fiona Macdonald

    Author

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    This year marks the sixteenth annual Go Home on Time Day (GHOTD), an initiative of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute, that shines a spotlight on the maldistribution of working hours and the scale of unpaid overtime worked by Australians.

    The Australian labour market has remained relatively strong over 2024 although interest rate rises have pushed unemployment to over four per cent. Recent growth in wages has not been enough to take pressure off household budgets, or to offset the major reductions in real wages that occurred following the COVID pandemic. Across the economy, large numbers of workers want more paid work hours. However, the underemployment problem co-exists with overwork and with unpaid overtime that contributes to the loss of substantial amounts of income for working households.

    During the past two years there has been a great deal of public attention and debate about a right to disconnect from work outside work hours. New “Right to Disconnect” laws came into effect in August 2024. While it is early days, these laws could already be having a positive impact including through raised awareness that workers should be free to enjoy their personal time without work demands. Our research indicates that unpaid overtime hours were fewer in 2024 than in previous years, both pre- and post-COVID pandemic years.

    Unpaid overtime
    On average, employees reported they performed 3.6 hours of unpaid work in the week of the survey, equivalent to       10.9% of total working hours.  This unpaid overtime equates to 188 hours per year per worker, or almost five standard 38-hour work weeks.

    •  If  unpaid overtime were valued at median wage rates, this means the average worker is losing $7,713 per year or $297 a fortnight.
    • At the economy-wide level, this equates to more than $91 billion of lost income per year.

    The personal and social costs of unpaid overtime, through working outside of normal hours, include negative consequences for health and wellbeing and relationships:

    • Four in ten workers report physical tiredness (42%) and feeling mentally drained (40%)A third of workers experience stress or anxiety (32%), and one in four experienced interference with personal life/relationships (29%).One in five workers experience disrupted sleep (22%).
      • One in three workers (36%) indicate that unpaid overtime is either expected or encouraged in their workplace.
    •  The most common reason for working outside scheduled work hours is too much work (41%), with the second most common reason being staff shortages when other staff are absent or on leave (31%).

    Dissatisfaction with working hours
    Across the whole labour market, almost half of all employed workers (45%) are unsatisfied with their working hours – wanting either more or fewer hours.
    o One in three workers (32%) reported that they wanted more paid hours. This desire was especially strong among workers in casual jobs (51%). Over four in ten workers (43%) aged 18 to 30 years of age wanted more paid hours.
    o Just over half of workers (55%) indicated their hours were about right.

    To calculate how much pay you are losing through unpaid overtime go to our unpaid overtime calculator at gohomeontimeday.org.au



    Full report

    Share

  • Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Inquiry into the Digital Transformation of Workplaces

    Digital Technology & the Internet, Future of Work, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Inquiry into the Digital Transformation of Workplaces

    by Fiona Macdonald and Lisa Heap

    Authors

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Lisa Heap

    Senior Researcher

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way we work and the jobs we do. AI innovations in workplaces can have positive benefits, including through productivity gains. However, AI applications can also have significant risks for workers and for job quality.
    AI applications, including automated decision making, are not neutral processes. Software can be designed and used to assist workers by augmenting their capacity and freeing up time for more meaningful or creative work. Or it can be designed and used in ways that intensify work and displace workers.
    International evidence shows the use of AI in workplaces for managing workers and work processes is extending and intensifying long-standing efficiency-driven logics that result in reduced autonomy and control and intensify work, undermining job quality and worker wellbeing. Even when designed for benevolent purposes, unintended consequences can arise from the adoption of AI in workplaces. These include serious breaches of privacy, bias and discrimination in recruitment and hiring, and unfair decision-making in performance measurement and evaluation.
    In this submission we argue that the promotion of AI innovation must not overshadow objectives and principles for decent jobs and fairness at work. We set out principles for new laws to regulate the uses of AI in workplaces with a goal of protecting workers.



    Full report

    Share

  • Polling – Right to Disconnect

    Future of Work, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Polling – Right to Disconnect

    by Fiona Macdonald

    Author

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Media release



    Most Coalition voters back right to disconnect

    Survey respondents were asked if they would support or oppose the federal government legislating a right to disconnect that would direct employers to avoid contacting workers outside of work hours, unless in an emergency.

    Key Findings:

    • Three in four Australians (76%) support the federal government legislating a right to disconnect.
    • One in nine Australians (11%) oppose legislating a right to disconnect.
    • A majority of Australians across all voting intentions support legislating a right to disconnect (61% to 90%).



    Full report



    Disclosure Statement




    Factsheet
    Most Coalition voters back right to disconnect

    Share

  • Call Me Maybe (Not)

    Future of Work, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Call Me Maybe (Not)

    Working Overtime and A Right To Disconnect in Australia
    by Eliza Littleton and Lily Raynes

    Authors

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Media release



    Australians Working 6 Weeks Unpaid Overtime, Costing Economy Over $92 Billion: Go Home on Time Day Report

    Working beyond scheduled hours has long been a problem for Australian workers. The nature and scale of overtime has more recently been shaped by the rise in flexible working arrangements and the integration of information and communication technology at work. Checking emails on the weekend, taking multiple-time-zone calls out of hours, and teleconferencing from the dining table have all become familiar experiences amongst workers. This both enabled working from home conditions during the pandemic for a large portion of workers, and accelerated patterns of overtime through the blurring of lines between work and home life.

    The survey results presented in this report show that overtime is a prevalent and systemic issue in Australia, primarily driven by working conditions within the control of employers.

    • Seven in ten (71%) workers reported having performed work outside of scheduled working hours. While only 29% of workers indicated that they have not done overtime.
    • Of those who completed overtime, the largest share performed overtime often, as opposed to sometimes, rarely, or never.
      • Almost half (44%) reported often performing overtime to meet employer expectations, and another 31% performed overtime sometimes.
      • Overtime was fairly evenly spread across industries and occupations, suggesting it is not an isolated issue that can be resolved with a targeted solution.
    • The incidence and frequency of overtime are more common among men, young people, those with full-time jobs, and those in goods producing sectors or working as managers.
    • The most common reasons workers perform overtime were having too much work (36%), followed by staff shortages (28%), less interruptions working outside normal hours (26%), and managers’ or supervisors’ expectations (23%).
    • Over a third of workers (38%) reported that overtime was an expectation in their workplaces.

    Overtime doesn’t come without cost: it has significant consequences for workers, their families, and for society more broadly.

    • The most commonly experienced negative consequences of overtime work were physical tiredness (35%), followed by stress and anxiety (32%), and being mentally drained (31%), each affecting around a third of workers.
    • Over a quarter of workers reported that overtime interfered with their personal life and relationships (27%), and 17% responded that it led to disrupted or unfulfilling non-work time.
    • One in five workers identified that working outside scheduled hours negatively affected their relationship with work; 22% reported reduced motivation to work, and 19% experienced poor job satisfaction.

    Australia has enterprise agreements, modern awards, and national employment standards that are intended to set out limitations on working times. However, the prevalence of overtime suggests that Australia’s industrial relations systems are not properly protecting the boundaries between work and non-work time for many workers. In particular, existing laws have done little to prevent the creep of work into private time, aided by technology. This is why workers, employers, unions, and governments around the world have been looking at how to implement a ‘right to disconnect’.

    Our survey found considerable support amongst Australia workers for a right to disconnect.

    • Six in seven (84%) workers expressed support for the Federal Government to nationally legislate a right to disconnect that directs employers to avoid contacting workers outside of work hours, unless in an emergency.
      • Only 8% opposed the idea of a right to disconnect.

    A right to disconnect could take several forms, and be implemented via different avenues in Australia. Based on international examples and the attitudes of workers in Australia, this report finds that implementing the right within the national employment standards would be the most effective.

    • Four in five (80%) workers thought that a right to disconnect would be effective if legislated in national employment standards, making it the avenue viewed as effective by the most workers.

    This report provides strong evidence for the government to pursue a right to disconnect as a way of limiting the creep of work into non-work time.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Future of Work in Journalism

    Future of Work, Industry & Sector Policies, Media

    The Future of Work in Journalism

    by Jim Stanford

    Author

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    Active Policy Measures Needed to Stop Decline of Journalism

    Information industries have lost some 60,000 jobs in Australia in the last 15 years, almost half during the COVID-19 pandemic. And a new research report highlights the need for active policy supports to stabilise the media industry, and protect the public good function of quality 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.”



    Full report

    Share

  • Technology, Standards and Democracy

    Gig Economy, Future of Work

    Technology, Standards and Democracy

    Submission to Select Committee on the Impact of Technological Change on the Future of Work and Workers in New South Wales
    by Dan Nahum and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    Jim Stanford

    Workers in most industries and occupations worry about the effects of accelerating technological change on their employment security and prospects. New digital technologies are being applied to an increasingly diverse and complex array of tasks and jobs – including artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies which can exercise judgment and decision-making powers. Some studies suggest that as many as half of all jobs may be highly vulnerable to automation and computerisation in coming decades. The NSW Legislative Council has established a Select Committee to examine the impact of technological and other change on the future of work in NSW. The Centre for Future Work has lodged a submission.

    Concerns about technological unemployment are not new. Workers have long worried what will happen to their jobs when machines can do the work faster, cheaper, or better. But the historical record shows that technology has not produced mass unemployment or impoverishment – although dislocation and adjustment to technological change can be severe for some groups of workers, and some regions. The impacts of technology are always filtered through social and political processes; competing sectors of society naturally endeavour to protect and advance their own respective interests, as technology evolves. Will technology be used to enhance mass living standards and make work more efficient and pleasant? Or will it be used to enrich a small elite, while undermining the economic well-being and political rights of the majority? The answer depends on how technology is implemented, managed, and controlled, and whose interests prevail as the process unfolds.

    Employers tend to implement particular kinds of technology, in specific ways, to enhance their power and profits: not just to boost output, but also to intensify work effort, monitor and discipline workers, and restructure the terms of employment. These negative trends are not inherent outcomes of technology itself. Rather, they are the result of power imbalances in employment relationships, in the context of an economy that is shaped and directed by the profit-maximising actions of private firms.

    In our submission, we discuss several reasons why the impact of technology on both the quantity and quality of future employment is indeterminate, and highly dependent on the policy choices that are made as the process of labour market evolution unfolds.  While some workers will face heightened risk of job loss due to new technology, we nevertheless firmly reject the notion that work in general can somehow ‘disappear’ – even in sectors which seem ripe for the application of labour-saving or labour-replacing technologies. And we reject the implication that workers will somehow be ‘disposable’ in a brave new automated world. The reality is that productive human labour, broadly defined, is still the driving force behind all production and value-add. This is true even in an economy utilising automation and other technology-intensive methods of production. We must be aware of the risks and challenges posed to workers by accelerating technological change, but without resigning ourselves to a dystopic high-tech future in which workers have no power, no agency, and no security. Instead, our response to the challenges posed by technology can be grounded in a complete and balanced assessment of the threats and opportunities associated with new technology.

    The submission is organised as follows:

    • ‘Technology and Work: What changes are at play?’ identifies changes – and continuities – in the world of work in which technology plays a role.
      • This includes a subsection, ‘Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace’ on the incidence of this type of surveillance by employers in – and beyond – the workplace, using results from the Centre for Future Work’s 2018 survey on the incidence and impacts of such surveillance.
    • ‘The Macroeconomic and Social Context for Technological Change’ considers the broader political-economic factors contributing to how we use and regard technology in the workplace. Many of the changes often ascribed to technology are better identified as social or political matters, mediated through or exacerbated by technology.
    • ‘Technology and the Quantity of Work’ discusses technology’s impacts on the quantity of work available. We note that the uptake of technology by employers is in fact surprisingly lower than what many analysts have predicted – further evidence that technology’s effects on the work of work are mediated by social and political factors.
    • ‘The Technology of Production and the Organisation of Work’ further teases apart the distinction between technology as a discrete set of tools, and the social organisation of work, such as precarious employment. There is an interaction and overlap between the two but consideration of the set of challenges under this Select Committee’s Terms of Reference is lent more rigour by identifying the distinctions, too.
    • We present recommendations seeking to support the goal of maximising the benefits of technology, while reducing and ameliorating its social costs.
    • The submission concludes by reiterating that it is not technology specifically, but rather our systems of laws, institutions and social expectations overall that will determine the future of work.

    We are hopeful that this Select Committee can contribute to developing a strategic understanding of, and leading legal framework for, changes in the nature of work and the labour market. These issues have increased in importance in the context of the economic crisis, and the resulting weakness in the labour market, associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.



    Full submission

    Share

  • The Robots are NOT Coming

    Future of Work, Science & Technology

    The Robots are NOT Coming

    (And why that’s a bad thing…)
    by Jim Stanford

    Author

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



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

    Selected media impact

    Startling new research from the Centre for Future Work has shown that Australia’s economy is now regressing in its use of new technology, with negative implications for productivity, incomes, and job quality.

    The report compiles 8 statistical indicators confirming that the pace of innovation and automation in Australia’s economy has slowed down dramatically in the last decade.

    Major findings of the report include:

    • Business investment in new machinery (including robots) is weaker than at any point in Australia’s postwar 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 postwar history.

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

    “In fact, the biggest problem is that Australian businesses are not investing nearly enough in new technology, not that they are investing too much,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, author of the report and Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

    “The decline in average capital intensity and average productivity in the Australian economy is very unusual, and very concerning, because it suggests a structural regression in our overall economic development.”

    “The unprecedented weakness 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. In fact, 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.”



    Full report

    Share

  • Working From Home: Opportunities and Risks

    COVID-19, Future of Work

    Working From Home: Opportunities and Risks

    by Alison Pennington and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Jim Stanford

    With many regular workplaces shut down to ‘flatten the curve’ of COVID-19, millions of Australians are now shifting their work to home. Home work has great potential to cushion the economic blow of the pandemic: allowing many to keep working and earning an income, and many firms and industries to continue at least partial production. But there are also many challenges and risks associated with this major shift in work patterns. Much of the increase in home work will likely become permanent, even after the immediate health emergency passes. That makes it crucial to ‘get home work right’: providing home workers with appropriate support and protections, and preventing abuse and exploitation as home work becomes more common.

    This new Briefing Paper from the Centre for Future Work, written by Alison Pennington and Jim Stanford, surveys the scope of home work, considers its impacts on economic and gender inequality, and proposes several policy recommendations to make home work safer and fairer.

    Main findings of the Briefing Paper include:

    • About 30% of Australian jobs could conceivably be performed from home – but it will take time for workplaces to make necessary organisational and technological adjustments to reach that potential.
    • Occupations which can work from home were already paid about 25% more than occupations which cannot be shifted to remote locations. The shift to home work could therefore exacerbate income inequality; this reinforces the need for comprehensive income protections for those who cannot work from home.
    • The expansion of work-from-home arrangements raises several concerns regarding the conditions of home work, and protecting those who perform it. These include fair compensation for extra expenses associated with home work; applying normal rules regarding working hours and pay; ensuring a safe home work environment (including its social and familial context, with challenges like domestic violence); and protecting the privacy of home workers from undue monitoring and surveillance by employers.

    The paper concludes by urging researchers, unions, regulators and policy-makers to pay top-priority attention to ensuring the safety and fairness of home work – because this shift is clearly here to stay.



    Full report

    Share