Category: Media Release

  • Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

    Originally published in Canadian Dimension on February 11, 2020

    In a new guest commentary for the journal Canadian Dimension, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford argues that existing power relationships in the labour market are being reinforced, more than disrupted, by the process of technological change.

    Stanford highlights seven ways in which the nature of work and employment is demonstrating a fundamental continuity, despite changes in technology and work organisation: ranging from the predominance of wage labour in the economy, to employers’ continuing interest in extracting maximum labour effort for the least possible labour cost.

    “I have started to conclude there is more constancy than change in the world of work. In particular, the central power relationships that shape employment in a capitalist economy are not fundamentally changing: to the contrary, they are being reinforced… As a result, I suspect the future of work will look a lot like its past, at least as it has existed over the past two centuries. Where work is concerned, it is truly a case of ‘back to the future.’”

    Stanford rejects the common assumption that changes in employment relationships (such as the rise of “gig” jobs, and other forms of precarious work) are driven primarily by technology–stressing instead the importance of discrete choices within enterprises and society as a whole about what kinds of technology are developed, and how they are implemented. Improvements in work are certainly possible, but only when workers are able to exert active, organised pressure on employers and governments.

    Please read Stanford’s full commentary, Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss (‘Who’ soundtrack optional!).


    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

  • Seminar Presentation: Superannuation & Wages in Australia

    Seminar Presentation: Superannuation & Wages in Australia

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford gave a seminar presentation in Sydney on 21 November based on his research paper about the historical and empirical relationship between superannuation contributions and wage growth.

    Watch a summary version of his talk below.

    The full paper is posted at: The Relationship Between Superannuation Contributions and Wages in Australia.


    Related research

    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

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

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

    Share

    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.

    The Centre’s 11th annual ‘Go Home on Time Day’ report also reveals the growing polarisation of working hours, between Australians who have too much work and others who can’t get enough. While 21 percent of Australians in full-time employment are working more than they want to, 48 percent of part-time workers and 64 percent of casual workers want to work more hours.

    “There is an epidemic of time theft in Australia right now and it is costing workers tens of billions of dollars, each and every year,” said Bill Browne, researcher at The Australia Institute and author of the report.

    Each November, the Centre urges Australians to appreciate the value of their legitimate time off by leaving their jobs at the end of their paid workday.

    “Today is the day we ask all Australian workers to go home on time. We need to put limits on our work – and push back against the increasingly common expectation among employers that we should stay late for free.

    “Our research has shown that employees are regularly staying late, coming in early, working through their lunch or other breaks, taking work home on evenings and weekends or being contacted to perform work out of hours.

    “Most Australians wouldn’t dream of working for 6 weeks without pay, but that is happening every single year in the average Australian job.

    The Centre’s 2019 ‘Go Home on Time Day’ survey indicated that even part-time and casual workers, most of whom want more paid hours of work each week, are still being asked to work unpaid overtime.

    “At the same time as many Australian workers report they would prefer more hours of paid work, unpaid overtime is an all too frequent occurrence,” Browne said.

    “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.

    “To end the epidemic of time theft, regulators must enforce existing rules regarding maximum hours of work on a more consistent basis, and provide workers with more choice to refuse overtime and work shorter hours. Workers, either individually or through their unions, must also demand that employers respect their right to leisure time – for their own benefit, and for the good of Australian society.”


    Related research

  • Chronic Unemployment a Consequence of Deliberate Economic Policies

    Chronic Unemployment a Consequence of Deliberate Economic Policies

    Share

    There is a contradiction between Australian macroeconomic policy—which deliberately maintains unemployment at 5% or higher—and a culture that blames unemployed people for their own unemployment and hardships.

    New research from the Centre for Future Work shows that there is no statistical evidence for the long-held assumption that if unemployment falls below its so-called “natural” or non-accelerating inflation rate (the NAIRU)—currently thought to be around 5% unemployment—that inflation and wages will grow uncontrollably. The report concludes that Australia’s controversial NAIRU concept and it’s use in economic policy should be abandoned.

    Key Findings:

    • Australian macroeconomic policy maintains elevated unemployment in order to restrain wage growth and inflation, this is known as the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU).
    • There are around 3 million Australians who would like to work, or more work, but can’t: that’s more than four times higher than the official unemployment estimate.
    • The economic benefits of reducing unemployment are enormous. Every one-percentage point reduction in unemployment results in 134,000 new jobs, $10 billion in additional output, and billions of dollars in revenue for governments.
    • Monetary and fiscal policy should aim to steadily reduce unemployment to as low as possible, rather than targeting a certain minimum unemployment rate.

    “In Australia, we blame the unemployed for their supposed lack of skills and motivation but at the same time, use macroeconomic policy to stop unemployment getting ‘too low’ – it’s an enormous contradiction,” says David Richardson, senior research fellow at The Australia Institute.

    “Record-low wages growth, and Australia’s generally sluggish economic performance, make the need for a change in policy direction all the more urgent.

    “It is time for a fundamental rethink of Australian macroeconomic policy, which should instead be focused on restoring genuine full employment as the top priority.

    “Since chronic unemployment is the outcome of deliberate policy, the least society can do is fairly compensate those who have been hurt by this policy – raising Newstart would be a start.”


    Related research

  • Young Workers are “Shock Troops” of Precarious Labour Market

    Young Workers are “Shock Troops” of Precarious Labour Market

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work, appeared before the National Youth Commission on 31 October in Sydney to discuss the challenges facing young workers in Australia’s labour market.

    The National Youth Commission into Youth Employment and Transitions has been holding an inquiry in communities across Australia to document the situation of young workers, who are experiencing much lower rates of employment and income than other workers.

    Stanford’s submission argued that young workers are like the “shock troops” of the precarious labour market: the ones sent in first to confront an especially dangerous situation. The rise of precarious work in all its forms – part-time work, casual jobs, labour hire, temporary positions, marginal self-employment, and digitally mediated ‘gigs’ – now dominates youth employment patterns. And that situation will not automatically disappear as young workers get older and gain experience. Rather, evidence suggests that without policy measures to stabilise and improve jobs, this will be a permanent shift that gradually affects most workers. Already, less than half of employed Australians are working in a ‘traditional’ full-time permanent wages jobs with normal entitlements (like paid holidays, sick leave, and superannuation). For young workers, that ratio is less than one in five.

    Stanford argued for targeted measures to stimulate more youth hiring into stable positions, an ambitious effort to rebuild vocational education in Australia and strengthen pipelines to post-education jobs, and a broader commitment to full-employment macroeconomic policy.


    Related documents



    Presentation slides

    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

  • University-to-Job Pathways Key to Boosting Graduate Employment Outcomes

    University-to-Job Pathways Key to Boosting Graduate Employment Outcomes

    Share

    New research shows active strategies to directly link university degrees to a job are needed, to better support university graduates as they negotiate a rapidly changing labour market.

    The report, by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, shows that employment outcomes for university graduates have deteriorated significantly since the Global Financial Crisis, with only 73% of recent university graduates finding full-time employment within 4 months of graduating – down from 85% in 2008.

    Key Findings:

    • At the individual level, a university degree is still very valuable: people who hold a university degree are more likely to be employed, more likely to be employed in a stable job, and earn higher average wages and salaries. Half of new jobs created in the coming 5 years will require a degree.
    • However, many recent graduates report being underemployed or in insecure jobs that do not utilise their specific skills—including graduates who studied technical skills or STEM subjects.
    • The report makes 9 recommendations to improve university-to-work transitions for future graduates, including establishing a national higher education planning capacity, and creating a timely and high-quality labour force information system.

    Alison Pennington, Senior Economist, Centre for Future Work:
    “Employment outcomes for university graduates have deteriorated significantly since the GFC,” says Alison Pennington, Senior Economist at the Centre for Future Work and co-author of the report.

    “Finishing tertiary education and finding a job in your field is a difficult and haphazard experience, which is leaving many graduates in jobs that do not fully, or even partially, use their hard-won and expensively acquired skills.

    “Vocational degrees, which are tied to specific occupations like health care, engineering or teaching, have the best employment placement rates. As seen in these professions, directly linking degrees to jobs through paid placements, occupational licensing and accreditation would greatly improve the situation of graduates.

    “A hands-on and direct approach that channels graduates directly into relevant career opportunities is needed. Australia could learn a lot from other countries, especially in Europe, where this is already being achieved through forecasting future skill requirements and planning higher education offerings accordingly.”

    Noel Edge, Executive Director of Graduate Careers Australia:
    “The overwhelming message from this report by the Centre for Future Work is the need for further research in graduate employment,” says Noel Edge, Executive Director of Graduate Careers Australia.

    “Research to explore the emerging work environment for tertiary education students in Australia, beyond basic government labour-market forecasting and graduate outcomes reporting, simply does not exist.”

    The report was commissioned by Graduate Careers Australia.


    Related research

  • Five Contrarian Insights on the Future of Work

    Five Contrarian Insights on the Future of Work

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    In this comprehensive but readable commentary, our Director Jim Stanford challenges five stereotypical claims that are often advanced in debates over the future of work.

    1. Work is not disappearing; it can’t.
    2. Technology is not accelerating.
    3. “Gigs” aren’t even new.
    4. Technology is often more about relationships than productivity.
    5. Skills are not a magic bullet.

    The commentary was prepared for the My Labour, Our Future conference held last month in Montreal, Canada to mark the 100th Anniversary of the founding of the International Labour Organization. We thank the organizers and the Atkinson Foundation for permission to repost the paper.


    Related documents



    Full paper

    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

  • Job Opportunity: Research Economist

    Job Opportunity: Research Economist

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work invites applications for an economist to join our research team in labour market research and policy analysis. The position may be at a junior or senior level, and the successful candidate may work from our offices in either Sydney or Canberra.

    The successful candidate will offer:

    • A graduate degree in economics or a closely related discipline.
    • Knowledge of and experience with a wide range of labour issues, preferably including: labour market statistics and trends; characteristics and determinants of employment; industrial relations and collective bargaining; wage determination and inequality; gender, racial, and demographic aspects of labour markets; the impact of technology on employment; macroeconomic policy and labour markets; and others.
    • Demonstrated ability to write to deadline for professional and popular audiences in a credible, succinct, and accessible manner.
    • Strong quantitative skills, including ability to access statistical data, analyse it (including familiarity with statistical tools), and report it in a variety of textual, tabular and graphical formats.
    • Confident communication skills, including ability to speak to public audiences, classrooms, and the media.
    • Ability to work collegially with other members of a research team.
    • Commitment to a progressive vision of work and fairness, including the goals of equality, participation, collective representation and trade unionism.

    Responsibilities of the position will include:

    • Research and completion of several project-length research papers, briefing notes, and shorter commentary articles per year on a range of topics related to labour markets and labour market policy.
    • Ongoing monitoring and analysis of labour market data and information.
    • Helping to maintain relevant websites and databases.
    • Public speaking, presentations, lectures and courses, media interviews, and related communication and educational activities.
    • Minimal office and administrative functions.

    Ability to undertake occasional out-of-town travel (including overnight travel) is essential, as is ability to successfully work in a self-managed and autonomous manner.

    The position will be offered on a one-year term-limited basis, with possibility for renewal. Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience.

    Applications are especially invited from women, indigenous persons, other racial and linguistic communities, people with disabilities, and other marginalised communities.

    Please forward applications (including contact information, qualifications, experience, two samples of written work, and names and contact details for two references) in confidence to cfwjob@tai.org.au. Please cite “Economist Job Application” in the subject field of your message; supporting documents should be attached in pdf format. Receipt of applications will be acknowledged by e-mail. Only candidates selected for an interview will then be contacted; no phone calls please.

    Applications must be received by 5:00 pm AEDT on Wednesday 9 October, and interviews will be conducted in Sydney on Wednesday 23 October 2019.

    The Centre for Future Work is an initiative of the Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive research institution. Thank you for your interest in the Centre for Future Work.


    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

  • Paid Parental Leave for Fathers Advances Parental Equality

    Originally published in Medium on August 26, 2019

    Rising pressure on individuals and families to meet their caring needs is the “human face” of decline in workplace protections and bargaining power that has gathered pace since 2013. Meanwhile, the need for fathers and male spouses to take on more caring and household labour is routinely discussed in the public domain. But how have Australia’s work/care policies worked to support a redistribution of caring and household labour to males and fathers?

    In this commentary, Centre for Future Work Economist Alison Pennington reports on a timely roundtable discussion held with work/care policy experts on Iceland’s “father’s quota” parental leave system, and the future for paid parental leave in Australia – co-hosted with the Nordic Policy Centre.

    Research presented by leading Icelandic academic Dr. Ásdís Aðalbjörg Arnalds on the day shows that paid parental leave for both parents at wage replacement levels is key to building more equal workplaces, families and communities, and a modern dual work/care model.


    You might also like

  • Stuck-in-the-Mud’ Workers Not to Blame for Wage Stagnation

    Stuck-in-the-Mud’ Workers Not to Blame for Wage Stagnation

    by Jim Stanford

    The Commonwealth Treasury raised eyebrows recently with a new research report that seemed to pin the blame for record-weak wage increases on workers’ reluctance to quit their jobs in search of better-paying alternatives. The report was presented to the recent conference of the Economic Society of Australia, and elicited gleeful headlines in conservative newspapers blaming “stubborn” workers for their own poor wage results.

    In this commentary, which originally appeared in 10 Daily, Dr Jim Stanford argues that Treasury has mis-identified the true source of the problem. With so few decent job opportunities available, it’s rational that many workers would choose to stick with their current jobs – despite stagnant wages and poor conditions.

    When in Doubt, Blame the Workers

    Blaming the victim is a long and dishonourable tradition in labour policy debate. Unemployed workers on the dole for months at a time? Clearly they aren’t looking hard enough for work. Low-wage workers stuck in dead-end jobs? Clearly they didn’t invest in their own “human capital.” Young workers facing a never-ending series of gigs? Clearly they don’t have the discipline to stick with a real job.

    A new highwater mark in this lamentable practice was surely set this week with a research paper from the Commonwealth Treasury. The report examined historically weak growth in Australian wages over the last several years. It proposed a novel but far-fetched explanation: workers are failing to leave their existing jobs to seek out better-paying opportunities elsewhere. This stick-in-the-mud attitude explains why wages aren’t growing.

    The formal paper contained all sorts of statistical cautions and academic nuances. But that was lost on the legion of gleeful pundits who seized on its findings, pointing their accusing fingers at complacent, “stubborn” workers for their own low wages. Never mind obvious actions that could directly boost wages: things like raising the minimum wage, restoring collective bargaining (which has all but disappeared from private sector workplaces), or abolishing the Commonwealth government’s own strict 2% limit on wage increases for its own employees.

    No, it’s far easier to ascribe record-low wage growth to some perverse characteristic of the workers themselves. After all, the forces of supply and demand are always working their magic: allocating resources efficiently and ensuring everyone gets paid according to their “productivity.” If that payment isn’t enough to live on – well, that must be your fault, not the market’s.

    In this approach the Treasury follows in the footsteps of other efforts by economic experts to ascribe blame for lousy wages anywhere but on Australia’s labour policies – which for many years have been premised on the assumption that government should stay out of the way, and let private market forces do their thing.

    For example, consider Dr Philip Lowe, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Even he expresses grave concern about the consequences of weak wage growth, highlighting the dangers to economic growth, consumer finances, and even social stability. But he, too, has ultimately blamed workers for the problem: they are not demanding enough from their bosses, perhaps because they’ve been overly intimidated by fears of job loss arising from about globalisation and robots.

    The Productivity Commission has also weighed in with a robust defense of existing labour market practices; if anything, they say, market forces should be further freed, not reined in. For example, its chair recently proposed eliminating current requirements that enterprise agreements (including those implemented unilaterally by employers, with no union involvement) cannot undercut minimum standards specified in Modern Awards. Will weakening these minimum protections somehow drive wages up? That’s hard to believe – but in any event, if workers really want higher wages, he said, they must acquire the right skills and boost their productivity.

    We should be deeply suspicious of any economic theory that rests on an assumption of collective irrationality by large numbers of people: like Australia’s 12-million-strong workforce. It is true that workers are less likely to voluntarily quit their jobs in recent years – certainly less than the heady 2000s, when many could quit a job one day and get a better paying one the next. Instead, workers are now imbued with a deep sense of insecurity.

    Especially if you’re in the lucky minority who holds a permanent full-time job with normal entitlements (like paid holidays and superannuation), you will naturally be tempted to hang onto it – not because you are unimaginative and lazy, but because you know full well there aren’t many other opportunities out there. Quality jobs are in short supply. And there are almost 3 million underutilised Australians (including unemployed, underemployed, and marginally attached workers) who need and want one. In that context it’s hardly irrational to hold onto your current job. Rather, it’s a predictable response to insecurity.

    Moreover, the insecurity and powerlessness felt by workers is no accident. It’s the deliberate outcome of a generation of labour and social policies predicated precisely on instilling fear and discipline among workers – assuming that will lead to greater obedience and productivity. Newstart has been frozen for a generation; protections against dismissal have been dismantled; steady jobs have been casualised or converted into gigs.

    In that context, there’s little hope of successfully demanding a raise from your boss: more likely, they’ll brand you a troublemaker and not renew your contract. And with strong restrictions on union activity and collective bargaining, there is little institutional possibility for workers to wield collective bargaining power.

    Even if Australia’s workers were to suddenly and collectively develop itchy feet, and abandon their posts en masse in search of greener pastures, wages would still be stuck in the doldrums: there are too many workers chasing too few jobs, and there are no institutional supports (like collective bargaining) to help workers win a better share of the pie.

    But never mind. The high priests of economic policy would still come up with other reason to blame the victims for their own plight – not the system. Perhaps their choice of music. Or their insistence on eating smashed avocado for Sunday brunch. Or their bad planning in being born into families without inherited wealth.

    After six hard years of virtually zero real wage growth, maybe this is a good time to look at what’s wrong with the way Australia’s labour market is working. Instead of blaming the workers who can’t get a raise.


    You might also like