My Blog

Category: Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

  • Theft By Any Other Name: Go Home On Time Day 2022

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Theft By Any Other Name: Go Home On Time Day 2022

    Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime
    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

    This year marks the fourteenth 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.

    Last year’s report focused on working conditions during the pandemic. Since the re-opening of the global economy after pandemic era lockdowns, Australia’s economy and labour market face both new and old challenges. While the unemployment rate is at historic lows, inflation has accelerated, interest rates are rising, and real wages continue to decline. The tighter labour market conditions, combined with strong productivity growth should theoretically place workers in a position to shop around for well-paid secure work. Accordingly, we should be witnessing improvements in working conditions and wages at least keeping up with prices. But this is not what we observe, this myth that a tight labour market will automatically empower workers hides the many diverse realities of working lives in Australia.

    While the labour force participation rate is high, we continue to see growth in non-standard low security employment like labour hire, casual, rolling fixed term, and gig work. While the ‘strong’ labour market conditions may benefit some workers, they are not improving conditions for all, particularly persistently disadvantaged workers like young people, women, first nations workers, and people with disability. Meanwhile, financial dependency on employment remains high as disruptions to global and domestic supply chains cause price hikes for critical products and real wages continue to fall behind, undermining the purchasing power of Australians. This year’s GHOTD focuses on issues Australian workers are experiencing in this economic context.



    Full report

    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

  • Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care

    Gig Economy, Insecure & Precarious Work, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care

    by Fiona Macdonald, Sienna Parrott and Andrew Scott

    Authors

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Sienna Parrott

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Andrew Scott

    Convenor, Nordic Policy Centre

    Current work and care arrangements in Australia contribute to economic and social disadvantage for carers, the vast majority of whom are women. Patterns of labour force participation and employment provide clear indicators of the inequities inherent in Australia’s current care and work arrangements. These patterns show we do not have equitably shared care arrangements, nor equitable employment opportunities and outcomes for women. Australia requires much stronger support systems, more effective work and care policies and more secure and fairly-paid jobs to address these problems.



    Full report

    Share

  • Working With COVID: Insecure Jobs, Sick Pay, and Public Health

    COVID-19, Insecure & Precarious Work, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Working With COVID: Insecure Jobs, Sick Pay, and Public Health

    by Dan Nahum and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    One in Five Worked with COVID Symptoms; Sick Leave Entitlements Must Be Strengthened

    Almost one in five Australians (and a higher proportion of young workers) acknowledge working with potential COVID symptoms over the course of the pandemic, according to new opinion research published by the Centre for Future Work.

    The research confirms the public health dangers of Australia’s existing patchwork system of sick leave and related entitlements.

    The main findings of the report, based on a poll of 1000 Australians, include:

    • More than one in three (37%) employed Australians have no access to statutory paid sick leave entitlements (including workers hired under casual employment arrangements, and self-employed workers). Another 12% had access only to pro-rated part-time entitlements.
    • When the pandemic hit Australia, barely half (51%) of employed workers could count on regular full-time income if they had to stay home from work.
    • Almost one in five respondents (19%), and a higher proportion of young workers (29%), acknowledged working with potential COVID symptoms at some point during the pandemic. This confirms the public health dangers of Australia’s patchwork system of sick leave and related entitlements.
    • Polling results also confirm that a significant proportion of workers (17%) also attended work after exposure to someone possibly infected with COVID.
    • Given inadequate sick pay entitlements and the surprising share of workers attending work in violation of public health advice, it is not surprising that 18% of workers did not feel safe attending their normal workplaces during the pandemic.

    This research indicates that Australia’s sick pay entitlements are clearly inadequate to protect workers’ health and safety at work and allow them to stay home from work when health advice requires it. The expansion of non-standard and insecure forms of work (including part-time work, casual jobs, contractor positions, and ‘gigs’) has heightened concern that many workers do not have the effective ability to stay home from work for health reasons.

    Government should expand sick pay entitlements to cover all workers, and also implement strategies to limit and reduce the incidence of insecure work: including by constraining employers’ use of ‘permanent casual’ arrangements, sham contracting, and on-demand gigs, none of which provide normal and healthy paid leave entitlements.

    Unfortunately, the current federal Government has done the opposite by reinforcing this shift toward insecure working arrangements – including through its 2021 amendments to the Fair Work Act, which cemented and expanded employers’ rights to hire workers on a casual basis (with no sick pay) in virtually any job they wish.



    Full report

    Share

  • Working From Home, or Living at Work?

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Working From Home, or Living at Work?

    Hours of Work, Unpaid Overtime, and Working Arrangements Through COVID-19
    by Dan Nahum

    Author

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    Media release



    Eight free weeks: Time stolen from employees skyrockets during COVID

    2021 marks the thirteenth annual Go Home on Time Day (GHOTD), 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.

    Last year’s report emphasised that 2020 had been extraordinary and difficult, and 2021 has brought little reprieve. Australia remains caught in ongoing and interacting twin crises: a public health crisis and an economic crisis. Each influences and reinforces the other.

    Around a third of employed Australians continue to perform at least some of their work from home. As a result, the standard scenario of workers ‘staying late at the workplace’, which largely framed our analysis of excessive work time before the pandemic, is now supplemented by a different dimension of excessive work and unpaid overtime. Now we must consider whether home work will become the “new normal” for many workers even after the acute phase of the pandemic finally passes – and what new pressures on working hours, work-life balance, and unpaid overtime are unleashed by the work-from-home phenomenon.

    Whether working from home or at a formal workplace, the problem of unpaid overtime (whereby workers are not paid for a significant portion of their work) continues to be severe. In fact, the estimated incidence of this ‘time theft’ has increased substantially compared with 2020. In many cases, people’s responsibilities in their home lives have increased in response to the health and social crisis, accentuating a double burden of unpaid work – one that is experienced disproportionately by women.

    Since 2009, the Centre for Future Work and the Australia Institute have commissioned an annual survey to investigate overwork and unpaid overtime in Australia. This year’s poll of 1604 Australians was conducted between 24 and 27 August, with a sample that was nationally representative according to gender, age and state or territory. Of the 1604 respondents, 1048 (or 65%) were currently in paid work.

    Our survey asked respondents about unpaid hours of work, preferences for more or fewer hours, family and caring responsibilities, and the balance between work and non-work life during COVID-19. This year’s survey also asked about electronic surveillance practices implemented by employers to monitor those working from home, and what workers thought about returning to the on-site workplace as the COVID-19 pandemic abates.

    This report summarises the results of that polling, and places it in the context of national labour force trends.



    Full report

    Share

  • Investing in Better Mental Health in Australian Workplaces

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Investing in Better Mental Health in Australian Workplaces

    by Liam Carter and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Liam Carter

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Jim Stanford

    Australian society is experiencing an epidemic of mental illness that imposes enormous costs on individuals with poor mental health, their families, and the broader economy. There is no doubt that the stress, isolation and disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has made this crisis even worse.

    Unsafe workplaces contribute significantly to the incidence of mental illness and injury. Workplace factors which contribute to mental health problems include unreasonable job demands, exposure to violence and trauma, long or irregular working hours, an absence of worker voice and control, and bullying and harassment.

    New research from the Centre for Future Work suggests that by requiring stronger monitoring and prevention measures in Australian workplaces, a significant share of mental illness and injury could be avoided. In addition to reducing the toll of mental illness for workers and their families, these measures would also generate substantial economic and fiscal benefits.

    Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, one in five Australians reported mental health challenges of some sort. And the total costs of poor mental health on Australia’s economy, government, and society were estimated by the Productivity Commission (2020) at a staggering $200-220 billion per year.

    Studies indicate 15% to 45% of mental health problems experienced by employed people are attributable to conditions in their workplaces. This suggests that the costs of workplace-related mental illness and injury are enormous.

    Our new report surveys the range of different costs arising from workplace-associated mental ill health: including reduced labour force participation, absenteeism, reduced productivity, high employee turnover, workers compensation costs, and others. Total costs to society from workplace-associated mental illness (including direct costs to victims and their families, as well as economic and fiscal costs) are estimated at $15.8 billion to $17.4 billion per year.

    Preventing mental health problems caused by work-related factors and stressors would expand Australian GDP by $3.5 billion per year, and reduce government expenses (for health care and other services) by $2 billion per year.

    Unfortunately, Australia’s system of work health and safety laws does not treat workplace mental injuries with the same rigour and oversight as physical injuries. The current regulatory system does not specify explicit, enforceable requirements compelling employers to take mental health risks equally seriously – nor does it equip workers, their representatives, and regulators with the tools needed to ensure employers live up to those responsibilities.

    It is past time for Australia’s WHS policy-makers to address the mental health crisis in Australia’s workplaces head-on. Upcoming state-Commonwealth policy dialogues regarding reforms to Australia’s Model WHS Laws are a crucial opportunity to modernise Australia’s practices, and catch up with other industrial countries.

    The economic and fiscal benefits of preventing workplace-associated mental illness and injury are substantial – and would be shared by employers, governments and workers alike. But the human benefits of preventing needless mental health illness and injuries, for affected workers and their families, are priceless.



    Full report

    Share

  • Excessive Hours and Unpaid Overtime: 2019 Update

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Excessive Hours and Unpaid Overtime: 2019 Update

    by Bill Browne

    Author

    Bill Browne

    Director, Democracy & Accountability Program

    Media release



    ‘Go Home on Time Day’ 2019: Australian Employers Pocketing $81 Billion Worth of Unpaid Overtime, Report Reveals

    New research from The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work estimates that Australian workers are currently working an average of 4.6 hours of unpaid overtime each week, which translates to 6 weeks of full time work without pay, per employee, per year – with an annual worth of $81.5 billion for Australian employers.



    Full report

    Share

  • Union Organising and Labour Market Rules: Two Sides of the Same Coin

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights, Unions & Collective Bargaining

    Union Organising and Labour Market Rules: Two Sides of the Same Coin

    by Jim Stanford

    Author

    Jim Stanford

    International evidence is clear that there is a strong, positive correlation between a country’s protection of labour freedoms, and the organising success and economic influence of unions. Improvements in basic labour rights and freedoms tend to be associated with increases in union membership (as a share of total employment). And stronger union membership, in turn, is associated with broader collective bargaining coverage, less poverty among working people, and less inequality.

    Australia has a poor record of protecting basic worker and labour rights and freedoms: including rights to assembly, rights to organise, rights to due process, and rights to strike. According to the World Economic Forum (a generally business-friendly international policy organisation), Australia ranks 5th last among OECD countries in protecting worker rights.

    A new study from the Centre for Future Work documents the correlation between workers’ rights and union organising – and shows they are two sides of the same coin. And that correlation between workers’ rights and the success of unions suggests that unions in Australia will need to continue their campaign to “Change the Rules” of Australia’s labour market (including improving basic rights for workers to organise, bargain collectively, and take industrial action). Winning better legal and regulatory protections for workers seems essential to workers’ ability to build stable, influential unions, and use those unions to improve their lives.

    Australian trade unions are contemplating the after-effects of the Coalition’s surprising victory in the 2019 federal election. The union movement and other social advocates built a successful public campaign to “change the rules” of Australia’s labour market – including lifting the minimum wage (to a living wage level), preserving other labour market protections (like penalty rates), limiting the spread of insecure work, and strengthening collective bargaining freedoms. The Coalition government is not sympathetic to that agenda; and though it barely discussed labour policy issues during the campaign, it may now try to shift labour policies even further in favour of employers.

    However, despite an unreceptive political climate for advocating labour reforms with the present federal government, the evidence presented in this report suggests that the broad campaign for an expansion of both labour market rights and union capacity should continue. The efforts of Australian unions and their allies since 2017 have been effective in strengthening public awareness of labour market injustices, and building support for obvious remedies. They have even led to incremental changes in policies by governments and institutions at all levels (even including, to a modest extent, the Commonwealth government). Most importantly, the international evidence is clear that eventually winning changes in the rules of labour market and industrial relations will be essential, as a complement (not a substitute) for unions’ continuing efforts to expand membership, extend collective bargaining, and lift wages.

    This analysis suggests that Australia faces a dual challenge: improving protection of workers’ basic rights and freedoms, and strengthening workers’ collective ability (given those rights and freedoms) to achieve better economic outcomes (like wage increases and job security). International evidence is also clear that societies in which the benefits of economic growth are shared more broadly across working and middle-income households demonstrate better economic and social outcomes. Rebuilding the labour practices and institutions necessary for more inclusive and stable prosperity will require progress along both of those tracks: greater respect for basic labour rights, and stronger unions and collective bargaining systems.



    Full report

    Share

  • Workplace Policy Reform in New Zealand

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights, Unions & Collective Bargaining

    Workplace Policy Reform in New Zealand

    What are the Lessons for Australia?
    by Alison Pennington

    Author

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Australia can learn much from the policy leadership of the Ardern Government in New Zealand and its reforms to address stagnant wages and rebuild a more inclusive workplace relations framework, according to new research from the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute.

    As Australia’s debate over wages and workplace rights heats up ahead of this year’s federal election, important changes in labour policy are also being implemented right across the Tasman Sea. Under the Labour-Green-NZ First coalition government which came to office in New Zealand in 2017, several progressive changes in labour law have already been enacted. Others are in development.

    Economist Alison Pennington reviews the policy reforms underway in New Zealand, and considers their relevance for Australia, in a new paper published by the Centre for Future Work.

    Pennington provides a timetable and analysis of seven specific reforms in New Zealand, including:

    1. a landmark pay equity judgement and development of a bargaining principles approach to facilitate pay equity claims and settlements economy-wide;
    2. the introduction of industry bargaining agreements;
    3. restoration of employee and union rights to collectively bargain;
    4. legislation tabled to extend greater protections against unfair dismissal to labour hire and agency workers, and new collective bargaining rights;
    5. government commitments to significant annual increases to the minimum wage;
    6. the establishment of broad civil society alliances in a campaign for a “living wage”; and
    7. the passage of legislation for a universal employee entitlement to 10 days paid domestic violence leave.

    Together they represent an ambitious and multi-dimensional effort by the new government in New Zealand to address low wages, inequality, and poor job quality. In every case, Pennington notes, the reforms emphasise the importance of collective representation and unions: not just to lift standards directly through collective bargaining, but also to play a central role in implementing other reforms (such as pay equity and domestic violence leave).

    New Zealand’s experience with these reforms holds several lessons for the Australian debate over workplace policies. The ambition and scope of the New Zealand reforms certainly confirms that there is great potential for national governments to act forcefully to respond to growing public concern over work, wages, and job security.

    “Australians have been touched by the tragedy in Christchurch, and impressed by the compassionate and effective response from the Ardern Government. And it seems there are other areas where we could learn from our New Zealand neighbours, including their new workplace policies,” said Pennington.



    Full report

    Share

  • Excessive Hours and Unpaid Overtime: 2018 Update

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Excessive Hours and Unpaid Overtime: 2018 Update

    by Troy Henderson and Tom Swann

    Authors

    Troy Henderson

    Tom Swann

    Media release



    ‘Go Home On Time Day’ 2018: Australians Owed $106 Billion in Unpaid Overtime, Report Reveals

    2018 marks the tenth annual Go Home on Time Day (GHOTD), 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.

    Over many years, the Centre for Future Work and the Australia Institute have commissioned regular annual opinion polls to investigate overwork, unpaid overtime, and other instances of “time theft” in Australia. This year’s poll of 1459 Australians was conducted between September 17-26, with a sample that was nationally representative according to gender, age and state or territory.

    Of the 1459 respondents, 880 (or 60 percent) were currently in paid work. That subsample was then asked several questions regarding their hours of work, whether they wanted more work or less, and whether they worked unpaid overtime in their jobs.

    This report summarises the results of that polling, and places it in the context of national labour force trends:

    • There is growing evidence of a sharp polarisation in Australian employment patterns, between those with full-time, relatively secure jobs, and a growing portion working part-time, casual, temporary, or insecure positions.
    • In the survey, 54 percent were employed in permanent full-time jobs, while 46 percent were employed as part-time, casual or self-employed workers. In other words, almost half of the sample experienced one or more degrees of nonstandard or insecure work – broadly in line with the experience in the overall labour market.
    • Compared with last year, there was a significant increase in those wanting more paid hours (from 34 percent to 40 percent) and a decrease in those wanting fewer paid hours (from 19 percent to 15 percent). We believe this shift reflects the high levels of underemployment in Australia’s labour force, and the ongoing struggle of those in non-standard jobs to attain enough hours of work.
    • In the survey, 20 percent of full-time workers said they would prefer to work fewer hours, and 30 percent said they wanted more. 50 percent said their hours were about right.
    • By contrast, those in part-time or casual positions work far fewer and more uncertain hours, and most would prefer to work more – 54 percent of parttime workers and 63 percent of casual workers. This highlights the problems of underemployment and inadequate incomes experienced by the growing proportion of Australian workers in insecure jobs. Only 7 percent of part-time employees and 2 percent of casuals wanted fewer paid hours.
    • At the same time as many Australian workers report they would prefer more hours of paid work, the incidence of unpaid overtime is also growing: including coming in early, leaving late, working at home or on weekends, working through regular breaks and lunch hours, responding to calls or emails out of working hours, and more. Across all forms of employment, our respondents reported working an average of 6.0 hours of unpaid labour per week (up from an average of 5.1 hours in 2017 and 4.6 hours in 2016).
    • This translates into an annual average of 312 hours of unpaid overtime per worker per year across all forms of employment. Based on a standard 38-hour workweek, this is equivalent to more than 8 weeks (or 2 months) of unpaid work per worker per year.
    • Full-time workers reported the greatest incidence of unpaid overtime: on average 7.1 hours per week. This was a substantial increase from a reported 6 hours per week in last year’s survey.
    • Part-time workers worked on average 4.2 hours per week unpaid, while even casual workers worked on average 2.8 hours unpaid.
    • The aggregate value of this “time theft” is substantial. Across the workforce, we estimate the total value of unpaid overtime at $106 billion in 2018. This widespread non-payment for so much of Australians’ working time reduces family incomes, weakens consumer spending, and exacerbates the challenge of work-life balance.
    • In an era of wage stagnation, underemployment, insecure work and significant cost of living pressures, Australian workers cannot afford to give their time away to employers for free.



    Full report

    Share