My Blog

Category: Off the Charts

  • A Historic Opportunity to Change Direction

    A Historic Opportunity to Change Direction

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    A unique conjuncture of economic and political factors has created an opportunity for a historic change in the direction of Australia’s workplace and industrial policies. That’s the conclusion of Dr. Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work, in a major review article published in Economic and Labour Relations Review, an Australian academic journal.

    In a broad overview of the current problems in Australia’s labour market, and the weaknesses of existing labour market policies, Stanford argues that the prospects are ripe for a fundamental shift in the emphasis of Australian industrial laws and labour standards.

    “A combination of political and macroeconomic factors has created a historic opportunity to turn away from the individualised, market-driven labour market policy that has prevailed since the 1980s, in favour of a more interventionist and egalitarian approach,” Stanford writes.

    He provides evidence on the dual failure of Australia’s job market: there is not enough work for those who want and need it, and the quality of work has deteriorated badly. Both of those problems have undermined wage growth in recent years. But longer-term structural changes in labour market and industrial policies are also to blame: “The deterioration in job quality and distributional outcomes is the long-term legacy of the post-1980s shift away from Australia’s earlier tradition of equality-seeking institutional structures and regulatory practice.”

    Stanford argues that deep political and economic changes are opening a once-in-a-generation possibility for a redirection of labour and workplace policies. The political shift reflects more than just the traditional “horse race” between leading parties, as an election approaches. Rather, they reveal growing public frustration over the evaporation of the “fair go” and the dimming prospects for inclusive prosperity. These political shifts have broken the traditional bipartisan endorsement of business-friendly labour policies which shaped Australia’s labour market over the last generation.

    At the same time, major macroeconomic challenges are reinforcing the need for a future Australian government to consider a different approach to supporting incomes and growth. The effects of restrictive labour policies on wages and inequality were moderated and disguised for some years by Australia’s vibrant investment and growth conditions. But now growth is slowing dramatically (due to the property price downturn, weak consumer finances, and weak business investment), and so the harsh effects of employer-oriented workplace policies are being felt undiluted by millions of working Australians.

    “There is growing sentiment among many researchers, industrial relations practitioners and worker advocates that Australia’s current industrial relations and labour policy regime (with its reliance on an eroding enterprise bargaining system, its severe constraints on union membership and activity and its network of fraying statutory protections) is in need of fundamental and multidimensional change,” Stanford concludes.

    Dr. Stanford’s review article, “A Turning Point for Labour Market Policy in Australia,” appears in Economic and Labour Relations Review, a peer-reviewed journal based at UNSW. Free public access to the article has been provided by the journal for a limited time: please visit this site to see the full article.

    Stanford’s review was also reported in a feature article by The Saturday Paper‘s Mike Seccombe on the important role that wages and workplace issues will play in the coming federal election campaign.


    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

  • 8 Things to Know About the Living Wage

    8 Things to Know About the Living Wage

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    There has been a lot of discussion about “living wages” in recent years – in Australia, and internationally. And now the idea has become a hot election topic. The ACTU wants the government to boost the federal minimum wage so it’s a true living wage. Opposition leader Bill Shorten has hinted he’s open to the idea. Business leaders predict economic catastrophe if the minimum wage is increased.

    As the debate heats up, here’s a quick guide to 8 things you need to know about the living wage:

    #1. The debate is new. But the idea is old. And it was invented in Australia!

    In 1907 a conciliation and arbitration judge named H.B. Higgins decreed (in the famous “Sunshine Harvester” case) that wages should be sufficient to meet the “normal needs of an average employee, regarded as a human being in a civilized community.”  He actually calculated the wage that would be required for a full-time worker (then assumed male) to adequately support himself, his wife, and three children. At the time, the living wage was 7 shillings (or around 70 cents) per day.

    Of course, our idea of a standard “family” has changed a lot since then. We have fewer kids, and most women now work for pay outside of the home. But the idea of linking the minimum wage, to the actual costs associated with a minimum decent standard of living, is still valid.

    #2. Working for minimum wage is a recipe for poverty.

    From that humble beginning in 1907, Australia’s minimum wage evolved over time. It’s now adjusted annually by the Fair Work Commission. But the link to the concrete costs of running a household has been abandoned. These days the Commission looks at various factors (including profits, inflation, employment trends, and inequality) in setting the minimum. But it does not explicitly consider whether a minimum wage is sufficient to pay for basic living costs. And in reality, it is not.

    A full-time worker on the national minimum wage today ($18.93 per hour) makes $719 per week – and that assumes they work a full 38-hour schedule.  (In reality, most low-wage workers can’t get enough hours of work, on top of their low hourly rate.)  That’s only about 45% of average weekly earnings for all Australian workers.  And it’s certainly not enough to run a household, and pay for a decent standard of living. So Australia’s minimum wage is certainly well below a true “living wage.” Minimum wage workers, especially those with any dependents, are likely to live in poverty.

    #3: How do you measure the living wage?

    A common international threshold for defining low income is at 60% of the median earnings of full-time workers. (The median is the point exactly half-way between the top and the bottom of the income distribution; it differs from the average, which is unduly pulled up by a few very high-earners at the top.) Median earnings for full-time employees in Australia are presently close to $1500 per week. The minimum wage would thus have to increase to $23 per hour or more, to ensure that a full-time worker reached 60% of the median.

    Another method of calculating a living wage is to gather data on the actual costs of operating a basic household for a specific family type (often assumed to be two adults and two children, but other configurations are possible). In addition to the necessities of life (food, clothing, and shelter), a living wage must also allow for other expenses associated with full and healthy participation in society: such as internet, transportation, school supplies, a minimal level of entertainment expenses, insurance, and more. There are no luxuries in this budget – just a basic, decent standard of living consistent with modern social expectations.

    After adjusting for income taxes and transfers (like the family tax benefit and the child care subsidy), we then calculate the pre-tax income required to meet that basic standard of living. That in turn can be converted into an hourly living wage, by assuming a certain amount of paid work by the adults in the household (perhaps one working full-time and one working part-time).

    This “bottom-up” methodology has been utilised by living wage campaigns in several countries – but not yet Australia. The research confirms that current minimum wages are not compatible with healthy families and communities. The estimated living wage benchmark can then be used to lobby for increases in the legal minimum – or even to push individual employers to voluntarily pay a living wage.

    #4. For a generation, Australia’s minimum wage has lagged behind a living wage.

    In 1985 Australia’s minimum wage equaled 65% of median earnings (above that 60% threshold discussed above). It declined steadily relative to overall wages over the next two decades. Successive governments were focused on reducing wages, and fostering more dog-eat-dog competition in labour markets. (Last week Finance Minister Mathias Cormann actually admitted his government was trying to keep wages low as a matter of policy.)

    Over time, the minimum wage declined to a low of 52% of median wages in 2008. It bounced back slightly since then, helped along by a decent minimum wage hike (of 3.5%) last year. But the minimum wage still falls well short of any conception of a true living wage.

    #5. Isn’t Australia’s minimum wage higher than in other countries?

    It’s certainly higher than in America: where the minimum wage has been frozen at $7.25 for the last decade. It’s now equal to just 33% of median wages there – by far the lowest of any industrial country. No wonder many millions of full-time workers there still live in poverty. Not exactly a role model for Australia.

    In dollar terms, Australia’s minimum wage is higher than many countries. Some business lobbyists even complain Australia already has one of the “highest minimum wage in the world.”  But that claim is not true in any meaningful sense. Living costs are also very high in Australia compared to elsewhere. And international wage comparisons must consider deviations in exchange rates and other factors. It’s better to compare minimum wages across countries using the ratio of minimum to median wages discussed above.  By that standard, Australia’s minimum wage ratio is below several other countries, including France (the highest), Israel, Portugal, New Zealand, and even Turkey.

    #6: New Zealand is increasing its minimum wage – and fast.

    In fact, our neighbours across the ditch are quickly putting Australia’s minimum wage to shame. The minimum wage there (presently $16.50 per hour) is already higher as a share of median wages (above 60%) than in Australia. But the new Labour-Greens-NZ First government has been increasing it substantially, as one of its first policies. The minimum wage will grow 25% over the government’s four-year term – by which time it will equal approximately 68% of median wages.

    #7: Economists have changed their mind on minimum wages.

    Business leaders and market-friendly economists used to argue that increasing the minimum wage will inevitably cause unemployment. After all, they believed, if something is more expensive, people will buy less of it (the “buyers,” in this case, being employers). But this simplistic logic has been thoroughly discredited by a whole new generation of economic research on the effects of minimum wages on employment. Starting with a path-breaking study of minimum wages and fast food employment in New Jersey in the 1990s (by economists David Card and Alan Krueger), economists now realise the traditional supply-and-demand story is wrong.

    In fact, they have discovered several reasons why higher minimum wages do not have any significant negative impact on employment – and in some cases can actually lead to higher employment. These reasons include:

    • Improving labour force participation and retention among low-wage workers.
    • Reducing job turnover and the costs of searching for new jobs and new workers.
    • Offsetting the uncompetitive “monopsony” power of very large employers, which otherwise restrict their own hiring in order to help suppress wages.
    • Boosting consumer spending by putting more money in workers’ pockets – an effect which is especially beneficial for small business.

    Hundreds of studies of minimum wages in various countries have found little impact on employment in either direction. Even Australia’s Reserve Bank confirmed that recent increases in the minimum wage had no visible negative effect on employment.

    Further counter-evidence that higher minimum wages do not destroy jobs – and lower minimum wages do not create them – is provided by the experience of Australia’s recent cut in penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers on Sundays and holidays. Employers said this reduction in wages would lead to more jobs and longer hours. However, research by the Centre for Future Work showed those two sectors have been among the worst job-creators in Australia’s economy since penalty rates were cut. In fact, the retail sector eliminated 50,000 full-time jobs in the year under lower penalty rates.

    #8: A living wage would reduce poverty and boost incomes.

    In sum, higher minimum wages have little impact on employment one way or the other. Job-creation depends mostly on macroeconomic conditions and aggregate purchasing power. Higher minimum wages are proven to lift incomes for low-wage workers and reduce inequality. Committing to a true living wage in Australia, would ensure that people who work full-time, year-round are lifted out of poverty, and provide a badly-needed boost to Australia’s stagnant wages. It would be a powerful step in creating a fairer labour market.

    Median wage data from ABS catalogue 6306.0, “Employee Earnings and Hours.” Average wage data from ABS catalogue 6302.0, “Average Weekly Earnings.” Both refer to 2018.


    You might also like

  • Million jobs not what it used to be: new report

    Million jobs not what it used to be: new report

    Share

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison claims that the pace of job creation under the Coalition Government – 1.1 million net new jobs in 5 years – is an achievement, however, the actual amount of new work added in the economy has not even kept up with population growth.

    New analysis of labour market performance released today by The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, shows Australia’s job creation performance over the past five years has been weak relative to population growth and compared to past periods of history.

    “A million jobs in five years sounds like an impressive figure, but there are now over 20 million Australians of working age, and our population is growing very rapidly. A million new jobs every five years, isn’t even enough to keep up,” says Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

    “A closer look at the evidence shows that both the quantity and the quality of work being created in Australia’s labour market is inadequate to the needs of our growing population, and highlights the role part-time work has played in inflating the apparent total number of jobs created.

    “Part-time employment has accounted for almost half of all new work created since 2013. Without the this rapid expansion of part-time work, which converts a given amount of hours of work into more jobs, the growth in employment would have fallen well below one million.

    “Due to soaring part-time employment, the number of hours worked by each worker has fallen to the lowest on record. Part-time workers also experience lower hourly wages, higher casualisation, and are more dependent on the minimum conditions of modern awards.

    “Along with the declining quality of jobs, our research shows an unprecedented stagnation of wages since 2013. With nominal pay lagging behind inflation, the real purchasing power of Australian works has declined for the first time since the recession-wracked 1990s.

    “This deterioration occurred in a time when the economy was growing steadily.  Instead of constituting some kind of economic triumph, the last five years really represents a lost economic opportunity.”


    Related research



    What’s a Million, Anyway?



    Full report

  • Job Creation Record Contradicts Tax-Cut Ideology

    Job Creation Record Contradicts Tax-Cut Ideology

    by Jim Stanford

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics released its detailed biennial survey of employment arrangements this week (Catalogue 6306.0, “Employee Earnings and Hours“). Once every two years, it takes a deeper dive into various aspects of work life.

    Buried deep in the dozens of statistical tables was a very surprising breakdown of employment by size of workplace.  It turns out, surprisingly, that Australia’s biggest workplaces (both private firms and public-sector agencies) have been the leaders of job-creation over the last two years.

    This runs against the common refrain that small business is the “engine of growth.”  In fact, workplaces with less than 50 employees actually shed employees (14,000 in total) since 2016.  Curiously, it was only smaller businesses that received the much-vaunted reduction in company tax (from 30 to 27.5 per cent), also beginning in 2016.

    Firm Size and Job Creation

    The tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses began to fall in 2016, first for the smallest firms (with turnover under $2 million), and then for firms with up to $50 million revenue.  The tax is not tied to the number of employees in a business, but the vast majority of firms which have received the tax cut have less than 50 employees.  Yet that is the group that has reduced its workforce since the tax cuts began to be phased in.

    In contrast, very large workplaces (with over 1000 employees) added 182,000 new jobs over the two years.  Workplaces with between 100 and 1000 employees added 187,000.  Very few of those workplaces would have received the reduction in company taxes (since most would exceed the $50 million annual revenue threshold).

    Workplaces between 50 and 100 employees created a net total of 103,000 new jobs between 2016 and 2018.  Some of those firms would have received the tax cut, and some not — depending on the nature of the business and the amount of total turnover generated per employee.

    The data on job-creation by firm size is detailed on Table 13 of Data Cube 1, in the “Downloads” section of the ABS report. The data refers to waged employees, not including owner-managers of businesses.

    The share of small businesses (under 50 employees) in total employment declined by two percentage points — since they were reducing their workforces, while larger companies were growing.  Small businesses (under 50 employees) now account for 34 per cent of all employees, compared to 36 percent in 2016.

    Why would large companies that didn’t get a tax cut create new jobs faster than companies which did benefit from the Coalition tax cuts? (The small business tax cuts are estimated to reduce federal revenues by $29.8 billion over the first decade.) Simple: there are dozens of different factors which determine whether a company is profitable or not, and whether it chooses to grow.  Tax rates are just one of those variables.  Others include:

    • Growth in consumer demand.
    • The company’s investments in product quality, innovation, and design.
    • Production costs.
    • Interest rates and financing costs.
    • Business confidence and expectations.
    • Management capacity.
    • International competition.

    Trends in all these other factors can easily overwhelm the marginal impact of lower tax rates.  Small business sales in particular have been held back by stagnant wages among Australian workers.  Even companies which experience higher profits due to lower tax rates may choose to simply accumulate those profits, or pay them out to shareholders in dividends and share buy-backs (instead of expanding payrolls).  Empirical evidence shows this has been the dominant impact of U.S. business tax cuts implemented by Donald Trump.

    Changes in tax rates can even have offsetting effects which undermine business conditions and hence reduce job-creation: if the revenue lost to tax cuts results in corresponding reductions in government program spending or infrastructure investments (as seems likely), then overall business conditions might be weakened, not strengthened.

    The reduction in employment by the businesses which most benefited from the expensive business tax cuts over the past two years should lead policy-makers of all persuasions to reconsider the argument that this is an effective way to stimulate growth and job-creation. However, in October the government announced it wanted to accelerate the next stages of the small business tax cuts — taking the rate down to 25 per cent five years faster than originally planned.

    So far, the policy is akin to shooting oneself in the foot.  Instead of reloading the gun to do it again even sooner, perhaps this is a good time to reconsider whether the strategy makes any sense at all.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

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

    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

  • The REAL Diary of an Uber Driver

    The REAL Diary of an Uber Driver

    by Jim Stanford

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    ABC recently announced plans for a new 6-part television drama called “Diary of an Uber Driver.”  The Centre for Future Work’s Director Jim Stanford wonders if this drama will truly constitute insightful drama – or whether it will serve to whitewash the labour practices of a controversial, exploitive industry.

    A version of this commentary originally appeared on the 10 Daily website.

    The REAL Diary of an Uber Driver

    by Jim Stanford

    ABC recently announced plans for a new 6-part television drama called “Diary of an Uber Driver.”  It’s hard to imagine that an Uber driver’s actual life would make for riveting TV viewing.  Here’s an illustrative account I have constructed, based on observations and real conversations with ride-share drivers:

    5:25 am. Shower and quick breakfast. Uber says I can “work when I want.” So why am I up at 5? Because that’s when there’s customers.

    6:10 am. Got one ride to the City, now deadheading back to suburb where the app says they need cars. 20 minutes of my time, plus petrol, down the tube.

    7:38 am. Been waiting 7 minutes for fare to come out of her house; I can charge her extra – but she’ll likely give me 2 stars out of 5 on the customer rating.

    8:12 am. Asshole office guy demands to get out at a traffic island. Totally illegal. If I refuse, I’ll lose stars.

    8:35 am. Driving obnoxious kid and dad to school. Kid waving a stuffed animal out the window, dangerous and illegal. If I tell the dad to stop it, I’ll lose more stars.

    9:20 am. Buy petrol.  Price up another 3 cents.  Apparently I operate an “independent” business, but I can’t raise my price when costs rise. In fact, I never even touch the money – it all goes through the app.

    9:28 am. Next door at Aldi’s buying bottled water, candies, and gum. $16. Customers expect the perks – and I gotta buy them, or lose my stars.

    10:35 am. Been waiting 15 minutes without a fare. Waits that long cut my effective hourly wage by a third. Think I’ll go home and go back to sleep.

    3:20 pm. Back on the app. Deadhead back to the City for rush hour.

    5:17 pm.  Waiting 3 minutes in no-stopping zone for guy who said he’d be right there.  Risking big ticket.  Could move, would lose stars.

    6:20 pm. Cop eyes me at traffic light as I accept next fare on the app. I know it’s illegal, but it’s the only way to work it.  If he fines me ($484 and 4 demerits), that’s 3 days’ net pay. I’m lucky.

    7:18 pm. Arrogant stockbroker gives me 2 stars, even though nothing went wrong. Why? Maybe it was my skin colour, not my service.

    8:25 pm. Drunken kids demand I go through McDonald’s. If I refuse, 2 stars for sure. Car now smells like French fries. And they spilled Coke on my carpet; another cleaning. They give me 2 stars anyway. I could give them 2 stars (as their rating), but it doesn’t matter. The customer is always right, and they’ll always get a driver. I might not find another job.

    9:38 pm. Another 15 minute wait for next fare. I suspect I’m being punished by the algorithm: it sends more jobs to preferred drivers.

    10:33 pm. More drunks, demanding to play Spotify through my sound system. Cranking it to the max. Stars at risk if I complain.

    1:18 am. Slow night, too many drivers out there. Getting very tired. Uber limits me to 18 hours work in any 24 (gosh); gotta sign off soon. I could always switch to Lyft and drive a few more hours. App sends rah-rah message that I could get to $250 for the day with a couple more fares.

    1:52 am. Deadhead home. App tells me I made $276, 15 hours on-line. That’s before petrol ($60 today), vehicle costs, data costs, and the damn gum. I’ll be lucky to keep half that. Didn’t make the minimum wage today… what else is new?

    This doesn’t make for feel-good viewing, by any definition. So what is ABC thinking?

    The mini-series is a spin-off from a blog and subsequent book by Ben Phillips, who began driving for Uber in Sydney after his own small business went belly-up. His writing describes many strange encounters with weird customers and other characters. The series will also draw in his own personal angst – including fears about becoming a father.

    In short, it’s like Taxi Driver for the gig-economy: a chronicle of mini-dramas compiled by a neurotic driver, ferrying colourful passengers around the big, lonely city. There will surely be entertainment value in some scenarios. But it’s hardly an accurate portrayal of the mind-numbing, exploitive reality of ride-share driving. And the whole concept raises questions that the broadcaster and its viewers should ponder carefully.

    For starters, why is the ABC naming a TV series after a corporation? Uber is the best-known ride-share company, sure, but there are many competitors. Moreover, conventional taxis are still a mainstay of urban transportation – and taxi drivers surely have as many interesting stories as Phillips. Taxis, however, are old-fashioned, while Uber is “cool.” ABC is riding the coattails of Uber’s brand by naming the whole show after it. Unfortunately, this also provides profile and endorsement to a troubled and controversial American corporation – one gearing up for a potential $120 billion (U.S.) stock offering.

    Let’s set that ethical issue aside.  An even bigger concern is that the series will whitewash, even glamorise, a highly exploitative employment practice whose legitimacy and even legality is under siege in courtrooms and parliaments around the world. Uber has recently lost precedent-setting legal cases in France, Italy, the U.K., the U.S., and Canada. More challenges are underway, including in Australia.

    Uber has been avoiding the risks, costs, and responsibilities that come with directly employing drivers – inconveniences like minimum wages, workers’ compensation, paid holidays, and more. Drivers pay all vehicle costs (including depreciation, maintenance, tires, petrol, phone and insurance). Uber controls all payments (through the app), deducting booking fees and a fat 27.5% commission; the driver is stuck with all other costs (including GST), hoping there’s enough left at the end to buy groceries. They can be fired for inadequate consumer ratings (logged through the app’s 5-star system). Uber claims its drivers are “entrepreneurs,” not employees – but that fiction is crumbling in the face of myriad legal challenges.

    In practice, many Uber drivers make well under the minimum wage: my 2018 research indicated average pay (after vehicle expenses) of $14.62 per hour across 6 Australian cities; other surveys suggest even less. Other issues faced by drivers include dismissal without severance or recourse; traffic fines (including for operating the Uber app while driving); unlimited competition (there’s no cap on how many drivers can sign on); and deadening, dangerous hours. Little wonder 90% or more of Uber drivers quit within a year.

    It’s hard to believe this series will portray the ugly side of ride-share driving. Instead, working for Uber will come off as a humble but meaningful vocation: one where human interaction (rather than earning the minimum wage) is the main remuneration. At a moment when the exploitive practices of Uber and other gig employers are finally receiving critical attention around the world, this smells like corporate propaganda, not high-quality drama.


    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

  • Australia’s Upside-Down Labour Market

    Australia’s Upside-Down Labour Market

    by Jim Stanford in Western Teacher

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    Originally published in Western Teacher on January 16, 2019

    Workers produce more, but get paid less. Business invests less in real capital, but their profits grow. Technology advances at breakneck pace, but so many jobs are degraded and menial (not to mention horribly paid). What gives? Australia’s labour market truly seems “upside down.”

    In this article reprinted from Western Teacher magazine (published by the State School Teachers’ Union of WA), our Director Jim Stanford tries to explain these contradictory trends.

    The article is based on a presentation to a recent SSTUWA delegates meeting in Perth.

    Cover

    Stanford provides a dual diagnosis for Australia’s labour market problems: an inadequate quantity of work, and the deteriorating quality of work.  Egged on by government policies which have deliberately suppressed wages in so many workplaces, wage growth has fallen to postwar lows.  This is now undermining Australia’s continued economic progress.

    In addition to diagnosing what’s gone wrong in Australia’s labour market, Stanford also explains the numerous economic benefits of stronger collective bargaining systems so that workers can receive a fairer share of the economic pie: stronger consumer spending, more stable financial conditions, stronger government revenues, and less inequality.

    To see the full issue of Western Teacher, or sign up for future editions, please visit the magazine’s website. We are grateful to Western Teacher for permission to reprint the article here!


    Related documents



    Full article

    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

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

  • Rebuilding Vocational Training in Australia

    Rebuilding Vocational Training in Australia

    Share

    Australia’s manufacturing sector has been experiencing an important and welcome rebound during the last two years. The turnaround has been documented and analysed in previous Centre for Future Work research (including studies published in 2017 and 2018 as part of the National Manufacturing Summit, co-sponsored by the Centre).

    Ironically, the manufacturing recovery could be short-circuited by looming shortages of appropriately skilled workers.  This seems unbelievable — given so much downsizing in manufacturing employment that occurred between 2001 and 2015.  But a combination of structural change within the sector, the ageing of the current workforce, and the failure of Australia’s vocational education system (crippled by a bizarre experiment in publicly-subsidized private delivery) means that recovering manufacturers may be unable to find the skilled workers they need.

    A recent feature article in Australian Welding magazine highlighted the Centre for Future Work’s research into the problems of the current VET system, the implications for manufacturing, and 12 key reforms urgently needed to repair the situation.

    The feature article is extracted from a detailed paper (co-authored by Tanya Carney and Jim Stanford) on the evolving skills requirements of the manufacturing sector, and the failure of a privatised, fragmented VET system to meet those needs.  That paper was unveiled at the 2018 National Manufacturing Summit in Canberra.

    “Stable, well-funded, high-quality public institutions must be the anchors of any successful VET system. Public institutions are the only ones with the resources, the connections, and the stability to provide manufacturers with a steady supply of world-class skilled workers.”

    Please see the full 4-page article in Australian Welding magazine with our proposals for rebuilding a high-quality, modern VET system to meet the needs of manufacturing and other Australian industries.

    We are grateful to Australian Welding and Weld Australia for permission to reprint this article!


    Related documents



    Article in Australian Welding magazine

    Related research



    Advanced Skills for Advanced Manufacturing



    Full report



    From Consensus to Action: Report from the First National Manufacturing Summit



    Full report



    Manufacturing: A Moment of Opportunity



    Full report

    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

  • New Video: Australia Needs a Pay Rise!

    New Video: Australia Needs a Pay Rise!

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work, was recently featured in a new video produced in collaboration with United Voice and the Flip production company.

    ANAPR Logo

    The video highlights the problems of wage stagnation in Australia’s economy, and the need to “Change the Rules” – including proposals for sector-wide collective bargaining practices, especially important in low-wage sectors such as early child education. The video has great graphics and production values, and is accompanied by a useful infographic. Download short and long versions of the film, and the infographic, through the links below:

    Shorter version (2:45)

    Longer version (4:03)

    Infographic

    ANAPR Logo

    Many thanks to the team at United Voice and Flip for their talented work on this project!


    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

  • The Year Past, and the Year to Come

    The Year Past, and the Year to Come

    by Jim Stanford in Workforce Magazine

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    Originally published in Workforce Magazine on December 14, 2018

    Workforce (a labour relations bulletin published by Thomson-Reuters) recently surveyed major IR figures in Australia on what they saw as the big issues in 2018, and what they expect as the major talking points for 2019. Jim Stanford, economist and Centre for Future Work director, was one of those surveyed, and here are his remarks. 

    What was the most important issue or event in industrial relations this year?

    I would choose the union movement’s “Change the Rules” campaign, which really gathered focus and momentum as the year went on. Of course, unions have been dissatisfied with the state of labour laws, and the erosion of labour rights, for years. But this year, together with other community advocates, they have built a very effective and focused advocacy campaign that I think will have a major impact on labour policy in Australia. Examples of its potential include the big rallies held in Melbourne and other cities in October; the important role that the union movement’s independent door-knocking and phone-banking campaign played in the expanded majority won by the Daniel Andrews govt in Victoria; and the generally high profile of news and debates around the issues of wages and workplace fairness in the media and public commentary.

    The current atmosphere is very reminiscent of the “Your Rights at Work” initiative that the ACTU and its affiliates organised in 2006-07 – and that ended up making a significant difference in the 2007 election (when John Howard lost his seat).

    There is a qualitative difference in this incarnation of the union movement’s organising, however: while union activists obviously are hoping to influence the results of the next election, they are self-consciously and explicitly planning on a longer-run effort to shift public opinion regarding core issues of work and fairness.

    Their agenda of proposed reforms would take several years to implement: including lifting the minimum wage to a “living wage” level, modernising labour laws (so Uber drivers and other gig workers would be protected), changing the structure of enterprise bargaining to allow multi-firm and industry-wide bargaining, and more.

    And they are advancing that agenda as an independent campaign, not as an arm of the Labor party. That positions them well to continue to advance the debate after the election … whoever wins.

    By carefully focusing its energies, building a strong “boots on the ground” infrastructure in communities (including crucial marginal electorates), and building strong public support for the core values underpinning the campaign (tapping into continuing Australian faith in fairness), I think this movement will reshape both public opinion about work and wages, as well as Australia’s labour policy framework.

    What are you most/least looking forward to in 2019?

    There will be a Commonwealth election sometime during the first half of 2019 (perhaps sooner rather than later, if the current disarray in Canberra is any indication).

    I look forward to seeing labour issues – and in particular, the stagnation of wages in Australia, and the growing gap between Australia’s egalitarian tradition and the grim economic reality that most workers presently face – feature as one of the top three issues in the campaign. Most workers have had no increase in real wages over the past five years; millions have fallen behind (especially given escalating prices for housing and other essentials). The present govt knows that this festering economic  frustration issue could be very damaging.

    There’s an opportunity in Australia right now to move the needle: imagine a modernised approach to labour policy: including labour standards that adapt to ongoing change in the economy (like gig jobs), a more ambitious crack-down on wage theft and other  illegal practices, and a revitalisation of Australia’s commitment to a ‘fair go.’

    However, I am not looking forward to the rolling out of some pretty tired warnings and threats about how modernising labour laws and addressing inequality will somehow threaten Australia’s economic viability.

    We can expect many dire threats about how the proposals for reform will drag Australia back to the “bad old 1970s” – a time, interestingly, when GDP growth, job-creation, productivity growth, and real wage growth were all significantly superior to the current era.

    This rhetoric ignores the growing consensus among economists that more equality actually strengthens economic performance – by supporting consumer spending and aggregate demand, avoiding the economic, fiscal and social costs of exclusion and inequality, and boosting govt revenues.

    The doomsday prophecies we can expect to hear from the usual suspects should be understood as the last gasps of a vision of trickle-down economic policy that has lost its credibility, in Australia and around the world.


    Related documents



    Attachment

    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

  • Industry-Wide Bargaining Good for Efficiency, as Well as Equity

    Industry-Wide Bargaining Good for Efficiency, as Well as Equity

    by Anis Chowdhury

    Anis Chowdhury

    Share

    In this commentary, Centre for Future Work Associate Dr. Anis Chowdhury discusses the economic benefits of industry-wide collective bargaining. In addition to supporting wage growth, industry-wide wage agreements generate significant efficiency benefits, by pressuring lagging firms to improve their innovation and productivity performance. The experience of other countries (such as Germany and Singapore) suggests that this system promotes greater efficiency, as well as equity — although other wealth-sharing policies are also needed.

    Dr. Chowdhury’s full comment is posted below.

    INDUSTRY-WIDE BARGAINING CAN BOOST EFFICIENCY AS WELL AS WAGES

    by Dr. Anis Chowdhury

    In an effort to reverse long-term wage stagnation, the ACTU is calling for an end to current industrial rules which effectively prohibit sector- or industry-wide wage bargaining. Predictably, the business community is opposed. Australian Industry Group chief executive, Innes Willox, said, “The ACTU’s latest proposals would destroy jobs and the competitiveness of Australian businesses…If the ACTU got its way, unions would be able to make unreasonable claims and cripple whole industries and supply chains until employers capitulated.”

    No doubt, the issue will be a hot topic in the upcoming Federal Elections. The Labor Party conference is debating the ACTU’s call. And the Liberal-National Coalition will surely accuse Labor of capitulating to the vested interest of the union movement.

    Mr. Willox’s claim that the sector-wide wage bargaining would destroy jobs and Australia’s competitiveness has no basis. A powerful example is provided by Germany, Europe’s strongest economy. In Germany, wages, hours, and other aspects of working conditions are decided by unions, work councils (organisations complementing unions by representing workers at the firm level in negotiations), and employers’ associations. Collective wage bargaining takes place not at the company or enterprise level but at the industry and regional levels, between unions and employers’ associations. If a company recognises the trade union, all of its workers are effectively covered by the union contract.

    Yet, Germany’s competitiveness did not decline. On the contrary, Germany experiences both strong productivity growth and strong wage growth. Despite ongoing real wage improvements, unit labour costs are stable or even declining – further enhancing Germany’s competitiveness.

    How is this possible? The answer was given by more than half a century ago by two leading Australian academics – WEG Salter and Eric Russel. By de-linking productivity-based wage increases at the enterprise level and adhering to the industry-wide average productivity-based wage increases, an industry bargaining system raises relative unit labour costs of firms with below-industry-average productivity, thereby forcing them to improve their productivity or else exit the industry. At the same time, firms with above-industry-average productivity enjoy lower unit labour costs, hence higher profit rates for reinvestment. Singapore also used this approach to restructure its industry in the 1980s towards higher value-added activities, with great success.

    Trying to compete on the basis of low wages is a recipe for failure. As a matter of fact, low-wage countries typically demonstrate lower productivity; and research by a leading French economist, Edmond Malinvaud, showed that a reduction in the wage rates has a depressing effect on capital intensity. Salter’s research implies that the availability of a growing pool of low paid workers makes firms complacent with regard to innovation and technological or skill upgrading. Other researchers show that under-paid labour provides a way for inefficient producers and obsolete technologies to survive. Firms become caught in a low-level productivity trap from which they have little incentive to escape – a form of Gresham’s Law’ whereby bad labour standards drive out good. The discipline imposed on all firms as a result of negotiated industry-wide wage increases forces all of them to innovate and become more efficient.

    So, sector-wide wage bargaining is good for the economy: favouring efficient firms, stimulating investment, and lifting wages. Of course, industry-wide bargaining alone cannot solve all the problems of wage inequity or wage stagnation. It must be part of a broader suite of policy measures, to provide all-round support for greater equality and inclusive prosperity.

    In particular, we must address the system that produces sky-rocketing executive pays at the expense of workers. A lower marginal tax rate is one of the incentives for the executives to pay themselves heftily, while tax cuts are not found to boost growth or employment. Share options for CEOs, which encourage job cuts and discourage re-investment, also must be reined in. If anything that is making the Australian economy vulnerable, is growing economic disparity between self-serving executive compensation and stagnant wages for the rest of the population.

    Reforms also need to address the macroeconomic policy paradigm, where fiscal policy is focused on creating needless budget surpluses by cutting social services and public infrastructure investment. Meanwhile, monetary policy is focused on a pre-determined inflation target regardless of the economic cycle. All of this stifles economic growth prospects and increases job insecurity – both of which are detrimental for wage recovery.


    You might also like