My Blog

Blog

  • ‘Wages, employment and power’: Call for conference papers

    ‘Wages, employment and power’: Call for conference papers

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work is hosting a stream at the upcoming AIRAANZ Conference.

    Join us as we continue the AIRAANZ and the Centre for Future Work traditions of bringing researchers and activists together to debate important issues in the world of work and industrial relations.

    The AIRAANZ (Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand) 2024 Conference will be held in Perth from the 31 January to 2 February 2024.

    Wages, employment and power
    Papers are sought on topics that relate to issues concerning employment, power and/or wages.

    Topics could include, but are not limited to:

    • the relationship between power and wages at the firm, industry or national level;
    • legislative reforms affecting wages, employment or power;
    • bargaining strategies to boost power and wages;
    • explanations for changing worker power;
    • job vacancies, labour shortages and wages;
    • the gendering of wages, employment or power;
    • employment, unemployment or participation amongst particular groups or industries;
    • product or labour market competition and worker power;
    • the effects of norms and institutions in labour markets;
    • the geography of power or wages;
    • the ideologies and strategies of employers, unions or the state.

    Submit your abstract to the conference organisers by 29th September.

    Feel free to get in touch with us if you have any questions about topics or the stream or would like any additional information.

    David Peetz d.peetz@griffith.edu.au, davidp@australiainstitute.org.au, +61 466 166 198 or +64 204 127 6749
    Fiona Macdonald fiona@australiainstitute.org.a, +61 437 301 065

    Abstracts must be submitted to the conference organisers via: https://consol.eventsair.com/airaanz-2024/submission-site/Site/Register.

    For AIRAANZ 2024 Conference details see: https://www.airaanz.org/conference/reimagining-industrial-relations-airaanz-2024-conference-31-jan-2-feb-2024/


    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 weak economy shows the Reserve Bank is not threading the needle

    The weak economy shows the Reserve Bank is not threading the needle

    by Greg Jericho

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    We have now had two consecutive quarters of GDP per capita falling – hardly the soft landing the RBA wants.

    The latest June quarter National Accounts released yesterday showed that without the increase in population, Australia’s economy would have shrunk for two consecutive quarters. This, as Policy Director, Greg Jericho writes in his Guardian Australia column, reveals just how weak our economy is, and how massively households have been hit by the 400 basis points rise in the cash rate.

    The Reserve Bank has talked about trying to thread the needle of lowering inflation and delivering a soft landing. But with GDP per capita falling and real household disposable income per capita now 5% below where it was a year ago, it is becoming harder to suggest the RBA has achieved its aim.

    Even when including population growth GDP only rose at all because of government spending and investment. The private sector is struggling as companies run down their inventories rather than build up supplies in the hopes of increased sales in the months to come.

    The household savings ratio is now as low as it has been since the GFC as households do what they can to pay the costs of essential items and reduce their purchase of discretionary goods and services.

    The Reserve Bank sought to dampen demand from a misguided view that demand was driving inflation. Instead, we know that inflation has largely been driven by international prices and costs and from companies taking advantage of the situation to increase their profits.

    Rather than focus purely on inflation the RBA and the government now need to be most wary of rises in unemployment. We are not in a recession yet, but should the economy continue to fail to grow aside from population unemployment will inevitably rise, and the cost of the RBA’s strategy will be felt even more so by households across the country.


    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 emissions are rising at a time they need to fall quickly

    Australia’s emissions are rising at a time they need to fall quickly

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on August 31, 2023

    The latest quarterly greenhouse gas emissions survey shows that Australia is heading in the wrong direction – and that needs calling out.

    The latest Quarterly Greenhouse Gas Emissions data came and went last Friday with little coverage. As Policy Director, Greg Jericho writes in his Guardian Australia column this meant that much of the terrible news was missed.

    In the past year, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased with the rise in transport emissions undoing any of the good that comes from falling emissions out of the electricity sector. At a time when we should be on a clear path to reducing emissions by at least 43% below the 2005 level by 2030, we are heading in the opposite direction.

    The figures also highlight the weakness of our 2030 target. The only reason we are even halfway to achieving that cut is because Australia includes land use in its calculations. Without including the faux cuts in emissions that come from using 2005 and the massive land-clearing that occurred that year as a baseline, Australia’s emissions would be just 1.6% below 2005 levels.

    Next week the June quarter GDP figures will be released.  We know exactly when they will be released and they will receive massive coverage, including a press conference by the Treasurer soon after 11:30am on Wednesday. By contrast, the quarterly greenhouse gas emissions data is released at random times with now warning and without any minister fronting media to discuss, explain and defend the government’s policies.

    We need to treat the greenhouse gas emissions release with the same level of attention we give to GDP, and we need to demand what the government is doing to ensure in 3 months time with the next release the figures will show a fall, rather than a rise.


    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

  • Urgent Need for Australia’s Climate Industry Policy

    Urgent Need for Australia’s Climate Industry Policy

    by Charlie Joyce in The New Daily

    Charlie Joyce

    Researcher

    Share

    Originally published in The New Daily on August 28, 2023

    For the first time in decades, Australia is talking about industry policy.

    And the interest is coming from all sides.

    At Labor’s recent national conference, the Electrical Trade Union (ETU) led a successful motion demanding the Commonwealth government invest big money to support domestic clean technology industries.

    The Business Council of Australia (BCA) released last week a report that called for a reinvigorated government industry policy to develop advanced manufacturing and renewable sectors, among others.

    Several landmark reports, including by the Centre for Future Work, have all reached the same conclusion: Government must invest big in industry policy to accelerate the clean energy transition and build Australian renewable industries.

    No doubt about climate crisis

    Business, unions, and civil society are all singing from the same sheet. Clearly, something has changed – but why?

    The past year has seen tectonic shifts in the global policy landscape.

    The climate crisis is now impossible to ignore.

    The past eight years have been the eight hottest on record – and July may have been the hottest month in 120,000 years. The northern hemisphere has been buffeted by floods, fires and natural disasters, and Australia is anxiously anticipating the coming El Niño summer.

    The costs of climate inaction are clear. However, awareness is also growing of the profound opportunities of climate action.

    In the United States, President Joe Biden has embraced climate action as an economic and jobs opportunity. Decarbonisation has been put at the heart of his administration’s “modern American industrial strategy”.

    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure and Jobs Act direct between $US750 billion and $US1.2 trillion to expand clean tech manufacturing, renewable energy generation, and sustainable infrastructure.

    In just its first year, this legislation has driven massive private sector investment, and already created more than 170,000 new green jobs.

    In China, long-term government investment and industry planning in renewable tech has given that country global dominance in the clean energy supply chain.

    Last year, the Chinese government invested $US546 billion into clean energy – more than the rest of the world combined. This included the installation of 107GW of solar output, roughly equivalent to the entire historical installed capacity of the US.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates China holds 60 per cent of global manufacturing capacity for most clean technologies.

    The rush is on to keep up

    Suddenly, the world is rushing to keep up with the US and China’s investment.

    The European Union now plans to invest more than $US1 trillion into renewables over the next decade and the EU is expected to reach 2030 clean energy targets years ahead of schedule.

    The governments of Japan, Canada, South Korea, India, and even Saudi Arabia are also all investing substantially in clean tech manufacturing.

    Back in Australia, senior government ministers declare their ambitions to make Australia a “renewable energy superpower”. But it takes more than just aspiration to achieve that.

    Across the world, big money is being spent empowering renewable industries. The global clean technology race has begun, and Australia is barely on the track.

    The Australian government must act now.

    Promisingly, the Commonwealth government set aside funding in the 2023 budget to investigate the changing global, clean energy, industrial landscape and prepare Australian policy responses before the end of this year.

    This suggests the government already realises its present policies – including the National Reconstruction Fund, the Powering the Regions Fund, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – are inadequate to this competitive challenge.

    The bottom line is that we need to spend more – much more.

    Centre for Future Work research presented to the recent National Manufacturing Summit estimates Australia must spend between $83 billion to $138 billion over the next decade to proportionately match the US IRA in fiscal supports.

    The ETU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) have gone further, suggesting a total investment of $152 billion.

    More than just spending

    But spending alone is not the answer.

    To ensure a new Australian industry policy actually works to drive decarbonisation, rebuild manufacturing, secure supply chains, and create secure, well-paid jobs, that money must be spent effectively.

    This means any government support for private industry comes with conditions attached, particularly concerning fair pay, secure working arrangements, and rights to collective bargaining.

    This means planning and co-ordination across various levels of government, the private sector, trade unions, and other stakeholders to ensure policy has maximum impact and money is spent where it is needed most.

    This means developing an expanded, skilled, and inclusive workforce through investment in apprenticeships and TAFEs.

    This means ongoing performance monitoring, backed by enforceable
    requirements (like claw-back provisions) to ensure businesses receiving public finance are accountable to public expectations.

    And beyond just grants and subsidies, government should not be afraid to make direct, public equity investment in private, clean-technology companies.

    This ensures the Australian public will share in the profits of successful subsidised ventures, not just bear the cost of unsuccessful ones.

    The growing consensus around the need for a new Australian industry policy provides an opportunity to reshape the Australian economy, rebuild manufacturing, and create thousands of secure jobs – all while acting on the climate crisis.

    It’s time for the Commonwealth government to make it happen.


    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

  • Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Share

    A new report from the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work is calling for increased investment in public school funding to lift flagging school completion rates and spark economic growth.

    “The Case for Investing in Public Schools: The Economic and Social Benefits of Public Schooling in Australia” has found that the current inadequate funding for public schools is preventing students from reaching their full potential and is depriving the nation of the significant benefits of high levels of school completion.

    The report simulates the short-run and long-run economic benefits arising from the 15% increase in public school funding that would be required to meet the minimum resource benchmarks established through the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS).

    Key findings:

    • Inadequate funding is linked to falling school completion rates and declining relative performance in international achievement. Students from relatively disadvantaged socio-economic, regional, and Indigenous backgrounds are most likely to be affected.
    • Additional funding of $6.6 billion per year is needed for public schools to meet the SRS commitments adopted by federal and state governments a decade ago, a 15% increase in total public school funding.
    • With additional resources, the decline in high school completion rates that has occurred since 2017 could be repaired under a modest estimate, and further gains in completion (in line with historical trends) attained under an optimistic estimate.
    • The enhanced funding and resulting improvements in school completion could lead to employment, economic activity, productivity gains and social savings equal to $17.8 billion and $24.7 billion annually (in 2022 terms) after two decades.
    • These economic benefits are two to four times greater than the additional yearly cost required to fully meet the SRS for public schools.
    • Fiscal improvements resulting from these economic gains, such as increased tax revenues and reduced social expenditures, would eventually offset the incremental resources needed for full SRS funding.

    “Australia’s economic success relies heavily on the potential of our young minds,” said Dr Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work, and co-author of the report (with Eliza Littleton and Fiona Macdonald).

    “Public schools play a critical role in ensuring that students have access to an education that provides them with choice and opportunity throughout their lives – regardless of their postcode or economic and family circumstances.

    “With stronger school completion and academic achievement, our communities thrive and our nation benefits from increased economic activity, productivity and earnings.

    “The total economic benefits arising from adequate public-school resourcing would be two to four times larger than the cost of meeting SRS funding standards. The fiscal gains associated with those economic benefits would ultimately offset the cost to government of improved public school funding.

    “Every dollar invested in public education translates into a stronger, more cohesive, and prosperous society. Let’s not rob our students, and our nation, of this opportunity,” Dr Stanford concluded.


    Related documents



    Full Report

    Related research



    The Case for Investing in Public Schools



    Full report

  • The Case for Investing in Public Schools

    Education & Training, Tax, Spending & the Budget

    The Case for Investing in Public Schools

    The Economic and Social Benefits of Public Schooling in Australia
    by Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Education has long been recognised as a vital determinant of both personal life chances and broader economic and social performance.

    Public schools play a critical role in ensuring access to educational opportunity for Australians from all economic and geographical communities.

    Public schools are accessible to everyone. They provide a vital ‘public good’ service in ensuring universal access to the education that is essential for a healthy economy and society.

    However, inadequate funding for public schools – measured by persistent failure to meet minimum resource standards established through the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) – is preventing students in public schools from fulfilling their potential. Growing evidence (including the latest NAPLAN testing results) attests to declining student completion and achievement in Australia, with major and lasting consequences for students, their families and communities, and the economy.

    In this new report, Centre for Future Work researchers Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, and Jim Stanford document the large economic and social benefits of stronger funding for public schools. The report measures three broad channels of benefits:

    1. The immediate economic footprint of public schools, including direct and indirect jobs in schools, the education supply chain, and downstream consumer industries.
    2. The labour market and productivity gains resulting from a more educated workforce.
    3. Social and fiscal benefits arising from the fact that school graduates tend to be healthier, require less support from public income programs, and are less likely to be engaged with the criminal justice system.

    Citing international and Australian evidence regarding the scale of these three channels of benefit, the report estimates that funding public schools consistent with the SRS would ultimately generate ongoing economic and fiscal benefits two to four times larger than the incremental cost of additional funding. For governments, the fiscal payback from those benefits (via both enhanced revenues and fiscal savings on health, welfare, and criminal justice expenses) would exceed the upfront investments required in meeting the SRS.

    Please see the full report, The Case for Investing in Public Schools: The Economic and Social Benefits of Public Schooling in Australia, by Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, and Jim Stanford.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Report Reveals True Potential of Fully Funded Public Schools

    Share

  • For most workers, wages are still failing to keep up with inflation

    For most workers, wages are still failing to keep up with inflation

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on August 17, 2023

    While overall wages grew in line with inflation in the June quarter for workers in most industries real wages are still going backwards.

    The best news from the June quarter wage price index is that average wages rose 0.8% – the same as inflation. This means that after 11 consecutive quarters, real wages have finally stopped falling.

    That is the good news, but as Policy Director, Greg Jericho noted in his Guardian Australia column, for most workers real-wages kept falling. Only good wage growth in construction, mining, transport and warehousing, and the utility industries enabled the overall growth to be equal with inflation. For workers in all other industries, real wages kept falling.

    And for all workers, real wages in the past year have fallen sharply and are around 5.4% below where they were before the pandemic.

    These latest figures only serve to reinforce that wages are not driving inflation and there is no sign at all of a wages breakout. Indeed, annual wage growth fell in the June quarter to 3.6% from 3.7%.

    It highlights that we do not need unemployment to rise to 4.5% in order for inflation to get under the RBA’s 3% target ceiling. The current rate is more than consistent with long-term inflation of between 2% and 3%. Any further efforts to raise unemployment by increased interest rates would only hurt workers and households for no benefit.


    You might also like

  • Australia at risk of exclusion from renewable manufacturing boom

    Australia at risk of exclusion from renewable manufacturing boom

    Share

    Australia risks being left out of lucrative new markets for renewable energy-related manufacturing unless government provides an urgent, domestic response to match powerful incentives introduced by the U.S and several other industrial nations.

    The finding is published in a new report released today by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, as part of the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held in Canberra.

    Key points:

    • There is an overseas manufacturing boom in the productions of batteries, electric vehicles, renewable energy generation and transmission equipment, and other renewable energy products.
    • This boom is being driven by incentives provided by the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, and similar supports in the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada.
    • Meanwhile, Australia is considering its response, but no clear strategy has been announced.
    • The report estimates the proportional investment required to match the American IRA in the Australian context at between $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.
    • Several qualitative best practices should also be included in the Australian response to the IRA to generate maximum economic, social, and environmental impact: these include strong labour and environmental standards attached to subsidised projects, public equity participation, and parallel investments in training for workers to fill the new jobs.

    “The extraordinary response by industry to the U.S. measures confirms that these policies are having an outsized effect on the volume and location of sustainable manufacturing investment,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work and co-author of the report.

    “It also confirms that Australia must move quickly with its response to this new industrial landscape, or risk losing its chance to leverage our renewable energy resources into lasting, diversified industrial growth.”

    Charlie Joyce, a research fellow at the Centre and co-author of the report, noted: “The global race for clean technology manufacturing is well underway, and Australia is barely on the track.”

    “Australia has many advantages when compared to other competitors in this market, including an unmatched endowment of renewable energy sources and ample deposits of critical minerals.

    “However, the painful legacy of decades of policy neglect for domestic manufacturing has left our industrial base in poor shape to seize the opportunities opening up ahead of us.”

    “If we don’t support domestic manufacturing to quickly enhance its production, skills, and technological capabilities, all that will happen is we will replace one set of unprocessed minerals: coal, oil and gas; with another: raw lithium and related critical minerals.”

    “Without action, most of the spin-off benefits of the renewable energy revolution for industry, technology, value-added and diversification will pass us by,” said Mr. Joyce.

    The report estimates the proportional investment required to match the American IRA in the Australian context at between $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.

    “That is a big fiscal ask by any standards, but not out of reach for Australia,” said Dr. Stanford. “But the common claim that Australia cannot afford to undertake proportionately equivalent measures is not convincing.”

    “Our federal budget is in much better shape than the U.S. And the government has committed to other, less pressing priorities which are just as expensive – such as nuclear submarines, Stage 3 tax cuts, and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies.”

    Please see the full report, Manufacturing the Energy Revolution: Australia’s Position in the Global Race for Sustainable Manufacturing, by Charlie Joyce and Jim Stanford.

    The paper is being released at the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 8.30am to 4.30 pm on Thursday, August 3, co-sponsored by Weld Australia, the Centre for Future Work, and several industry bodies.


    Related research



    Manufacturing the Energy Revolution



    Full report

  • Manufacturing the Energy Revolution

    Environment & Jobs, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Manufacturing the Energy Revolution

    Australia’s Position in the Global Race for Sustainable Manufacturing
    by Charlie Joyce and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Charlie Joyce

    Researcher

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    Australia at risk of exclusion from renewable manufacturing boom

    Australia needs to respond quickly to powerful new incentives for sustainable manufacturing now on offer in the U.S. and several other industrial countries, or risk being cut out of lucrative new markets for manufactured products linked to renewable energy systems.

    That is the finding of a major new report from the Centre for Future Work. The report catalogues new incentives for production of batteries, electric vehicles, renewable energy generation and transmission equipment, and other renewable energy products provided under the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and parallel public programs.

    Many other industrial countries, including the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada have already implemented major new incentives to support the expansion of the manufactured products and technologies that will be required for those systems.

    Australia is considering its response, but with no clear announced strategy yet.

    The report provides evidence that the U.S. incentives and content requirements are sparking an unprecedented expansion in manufacturing investment in the U.S. and other industrial countries.

    This response confirms that active climate industrial policies are having an outsized effect on the volume and location of sustainable manufacturing investment. It also confirms that Australia must move quickly to respond to this new industrial landscape, or risk losing its chance to leverage our renewable energy resources into lasting, diversified industrial growth.

    The report notes that Australia has many advantages in the global race for sustainable manufacturing – including an unmatched endowment of renewable energy sources and ample deposits of critical minerals. However, the painful legacy of decades of policy neglect for domestic manufacturing has left Australia’s industrial base in poor shape to seize the opportunities being opened up by the global energy transition.

    The report estimates the proportional fiscal effort that would be required to match the American IRA in the Australian context. The government would need to commit $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.

    The report also catalogues several qualitative best practices that should be incorporated in the Australian response to the IRA, to generate maximum economic, social and environmental impact: including strong labour and environmental standards attached to subsidized projects, public equity participation, and parallel investments in training for workers to fill the new jobs.

    The paper was released at the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 830am to 430 pm on Thursday, August 3, co-sponsored by Weld Australia, the Centre for Future Work, and several industry bodies.



    Full report

    Share

  • We need more than a definition change to fix Australia’s culture of permanent ‘casual’ work

    We need more than a definition change to fix Australia’s culture of permanent ‘casual’ work

    by David Peetz in The Conversation

    David Peetz

    Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    Share

    Originally published in The Conversation on July 31, 2023

    The surprising thing about the Albanese government’s announced reforms to “casual” employment is not that they’re happening.

    It’s that employer advocates are getting so excited about them, despite the small number of people they will affect and the small impact they will have.

    That’s not to say the changes aren’t needed. Rather, true reform of the “casual” employment system, of which this is just a first but important step, has a lot further to go to resolve the “casual problem”.

    What is the ‘casual problem’?

    This problem is that most “casual” workers aren’t really casual at all — as shown by analysis that I and colleague Robyn May did, using unpublished data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

    The premise for hiring them is that the work is intermittent, short-term and unpredictable. But, as you can see from the chart, the last time the ABS collected these data, a majority of “casuals” worked regular hours.

    Almost 60% of “casuals” had been in the job for more than a year. About 80% expected to still be there in a year’s time.

    Only 6% of “casuals” (1.5% of employees) worked varying hours (or were on standby), had been with their employer for a short time, and expected to be there for a short time.

    Even now, some “casuals” have been doing the same “casual” work for over 20 years.

    Permanent ‘casuals’

    All this has led to a class of “permanent casuals” – a nonsense term. They should more accurately be called “permanently insecure”.

    The one thing “casuals” have in common is they’re not entitled to sick leave or annual leave, and they are in a precarious employment situation. Their contract of employment only lasts till the end of their work day.

    That means they have much less power than other workers. So little power, in fact, that barely half of them even get the casual loading they are meant to be paid in compensation for not receiving other entitlements.

    On average, low-paid “casuals” get less pay than equivalent permanent workers, despite the loading.

    Changing legal definitions

    Not many “casuals” have been brave enough to challenge this exploitative relationship. But when they did a few years ago, Australia’s courts agreed permanent casual work was nonsensical.

    To be a “casual worker”, there had to be no promise of ongoing employment. A court would judge this not just by what was in the formal contract of employment but also by what the employer actually did. If they kept hiring you, week after week, on a predictable roster, you weren’t casual.

    In 2018, mine worker Paul Skene challenged his classification as a casual worker, arguing he had done pretty much the same work, with a few changes along the way, for five years.

    The Federal Court agreed he wasn’t a casual employee and should be back-paid annual leave. Another mine worker, Robert Rossato, had a similar victory in 2020.

    Employer organisations were “outraged” by the “billions” in back pay they could be forced to pay for having misclassified ongoing workers as casuals. They lobbied the Morrison government to amend the law, and challenged the rulings in the High Court.

    The Morrison government changed the law in early 2021, to give primacy to the written contract, ignore employer behaviour, and protect employers from back-pay claims.

    Later that year the High Court overturned the Federal Court decisions, ruling it was the written employment contract that mattered. If that was worded a certain way, you couldn’t test whether a worker was “casual” by whether the employer treated them that way afterwards.

    Labor promised to overturn these interpretations, and that’s what this proposal does.

    What will the legislation change?

    The details of the government’s plan is still not clear, but it is likely it will seek to amend the Fair Work Act to revert to something close to the pre-2020 definition of casual work, with a procedural twist.

    It will again be possible to judge whether an employee is “casual” based on employer behaviour. And an employee who repeatedly works a similar roster can, after six months, demand “permanency” – meaning rights to sick leave, annual leave, and better protection against arbitrary sacking.

    The twist: until they demanded “permanency” they won’t be entitled to any leave. So employers will be protected against claims for back pay.

    Theoretically this could affect hundreds of thousands of “casual” workers. In reality, it will likely help far fewer.

    Suppose you’re a “casual” labour hire worker in mining. You can tell what time you’ll start work on the first Friday next June. You go to your employer — the labour hire company — and say: “Make me permanent.” The labour hire company says: “We can’t. You might not have a job tomorrow.”

    And indeed, now that you’ve asked, maybe you won’t have a job. So would you really ask?

    It will depend critically on the protections offered to workers who ask to convert, and how credible they are to workers.

    Most people only expect a few people to make the demand. Workplace relations minister Tony Burke says he believes only a “very small proportion” of “casuals” working regular shifts will do so.

    Part of that reluctance will be fear of the consequences, and part of it will be that many casuals rely on their casual loading. About half of “casuals” are on the award minimum rate, compared with 15% of “permanent” full-time workers. Most cannot afford to “choose” to trade the money for holidays and other entitlements.

    If you’re not getting the casual loading, you’ve got nothing to lose — except your job. If the power imbalance means you don’t get the loading, you won’t fancy your chances.

    So, it will just work for a small number or workers – though it’s likely to be very important to them.

    More needs to be done

    In short, this is a good step but more needs to be done.

    In most other wealthy countries all workers – including temporary workers – are entitled to annual leave. That’s not the case in Australia, because of the “casual” ruse. These laws will not change that.

    There should be universal leave entitlements. Sure, there needs to be a loading where work is unpredictable, and hence so short-term that leave entitlements would not be practical.

    But everyone else should get annual and sick leave, and minimum award wages should be high enough that low-wage workers don’t have to rely on the casual loading to get by.

    The challenge should be about how we transition to that situation.


    You might also like

    “Permanent Casuals,” and Other Oxymorons

    by Jim Stanford

    Recent legal decisions are starting to challenge the right of employers to deploy workers in “casual” positions on an essentially permanent basis. For example, the Federal Court recently ruled that a labour-hire mine driver who worked regular shifts for years was still entitled to annual leave, even though he was supposedly hired as a “casual.” This decision has alarmed business lobbyists who reject any limit on their ability to deploy casual labour, while avoiding traditional entitlements (like sick pay, annual leave, severance rights, and more). For them, a “casual worker” is anyone who they deem to be casual; but that open door obviously violates the intent of Australia’s rules regarding casual loading.