My Blog

Blog

  • Pay Equity in Community Services

    Gender at Work, Public Sector, Procurement & Privatisation

    Pay Equity in Community Services

    The Consequences of Federal Budgetary Decisions
    by Jim Stanford

    Author

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    New Analysis: 12,000 Community Service Jobs at Risk Due to Funding Uncertainty

    The failure of the Commonwealth to confirm that it will maintain funding for community service organisations could threaten up to 12,000 jobs in that sector, at a moment when those services are critical to Australia’s pandemic-damaged economy.

    That’s the conclusion of new research on the economic importance of Commonwealth pay equity funding, conducted by the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute.

    The federal government has been stalling on whether it will continue $576.5 million in supplemental funding for federally-supported community services, currently set to expire in the current (2020-21) financial year.

    The special funding was part of the Commonwealth government’s legislated 9-year timetable to phase in pay equity wage adjustments in community services.

    If that funding is not renewed (either by incorporation into a higher level of core funding for affected organisations, or through the extension of explicit pay equity supplements), the resulting funding shortfall will undermine and reverse the progress that has been made toward pay equity since the 2012 pay equity order.

    The loss of federal pay equity supplements would inevitably produce some combination of staffing cuts and wage cuts, as organisations respond to such a significant loss of funding.

    If experienced fully through staff cuts, the end of federal supplements would result in the loss of close to 12,000 jobs in federally-supported community organisations.

    Alternatively, if the brunt of the funding cut is experienced through effective wage reductions (achieved through a range of potential channels described in the paper), it will reduce annual incomes for federally-funded community service workers by as much as $15,000 for full-time staff.

    The implementation of pay equity in community services has made a measurable difference to Australia’s (slow and uneven) progress toward closing the gender pay gap.

    The Centre for Future Work report found that the health and social services industry (which includes these community service organisations) has reduced the gender pay gap by more than any other industry in the years since the pay equity reform was announced. Those past gains will be undermined and reversed unless federal funding consistent with new pay equity norms is quickly confirmed



    Full report

    Share

  • Technology, Standards and Democracy

    Gig Economy, Future of Work

    Technology, Standards and Democracy

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

    Authors

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    Jim Stanford

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

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

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

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

    The submission is organised as follows:

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

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



    Full submission

    Share

  • Webinar: How TAFE Can Drive Australia’s Skills and Jobs Recovery

    Webinar: How TAFE Can Drive Australia’s Skills and Jobs Recovery

    by Alison Pennington

    Share

    With millions facing unemployment and crisis-accelerated job transitions, public investment in the skills and earning capabilities of Australians will be critical to our post-pandemic recovery.

    To mark National TAFE Day and the release of new research by the Centre for Future Work on the economic and social benefits of the TAFE system, The Australia Institute hosted a timely discussion on how the TAFE system can drive a COVID-era skills and jobs recovery with ACTU President Michele O’Neil, Correna Haythorpe, federal president of the Australian Education Union, and Alison Pennington, Senior Economist at the Centre for Future Work.

    The webinar was presented as part of the Australia Institute’s widely acclaimed Economics of a Pandemic webinar series and explored why the TAFE system has been in turmoil, the historic role it has played generating a more skilled workforce and productive economy, and how we can fix it.


    Related documents



    Presentation slides

    Related research



    An Investment in Productivity and Inclusion



    Full report

    You might also like

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

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

    Share

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

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

    Major findings include:

    • Business investment in new machinery (including robots) is weaker than at any point in Australia’s post-war history.
    • Business spending on new research and technology has also been falling in Australia, and now ranks well behind the average of other industrial countries (and even some emerging economies, like China).
    • The average amount of machinery and equipment used by the typical Australian worker has been declining since 2014, and has since fallen by 6%.
    • Because of less automation and innovation, average productivity in Australia’s economy has also been declining for three straight years – also the weakest performance in Australia’s post-war history.

    “Australian businesses are not investing nearly enough in new technology,” said Dr Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

    “This lack of business investment in new technology does not mean that Australian jobs are somehow safer. To the contrary, the failure of business investment means that even more jobs will be located in low-productivity, low-tech, low-wage industries – with terrible implications for wages and job quality.

    “Business leaders love to complain that Australia’s productivity problems are due to red tape, taxes, and unions. The evidence is clear that their own failure to invest in new capital and new technology explains the stagnation in productivity. Instead of blaming others for this outcome, business leaders need to look in the mirror.”


    Related research



    The Robots are NOT Coming



    Full report

  • The Robots are NOT Coming

    Future of Work, Science & Technology

    The Robots are NOT Coming

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

    Author

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



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

    Selected media impact

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

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

    Major findings of the report include:

    • Business investment in new machinery (including robots) is weaker than at any point in Australia’s postwar history.
    • Business spending on new research and technology has also been falling in Australia, and now ranks well behind the average of other industrial countries (and even some emerging economies, like China).
    • The average amount of machinery and equipment used by the typical Australian worker has been declining since 2014, and has since fallen by 6%.
    • Because of less automation and innovation, average productivity in Australia’s economy has also been declining for three straight years – also the weakest performance in Australia’s postwar history.

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

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

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

    “The unprecedented weakness of business investment in new technology does not mean that Australian jobs are somehow safer. To the contrary, the failure of business investment means that even more jobs will be located in low-productivity, low-tech, low-wage industries – with terrible implications for wages and job quality.”

    “Business leaders love to complain that Australia’s productivity problems are due to red tape, taxes, and unions. In fact, the evidence is clear that their own failure to invest in new capital and new technology explains the stagnation in productivity. Instead of blaming others for this outcome, business leaders need to look in the mirror.”



    Full report

    Share

  • TAFE system supports $92.5 billion in annual economic benefits

    TAFE system supports $92.5 billion in annual economic benefits

    Share

    New research from the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work shows the TAFE system supports $92.5 billion in annual economic benefits through the direct operation of TAFE institutes, higher incomes and productivity generated by the TAFE-credentialed workforce, and reduced social benefits costs.

    The report adopts a multidimensional approach to measuring the wide economic and social benefits of the TAFE system resulting from Australia’s historic investments in public vocational education. Over $6 billion in economic activity and 48,000 jobs are supported by the direct operation of TAFE institutes and the TAFE supply-chain. Through its accumulated contribution to the employability and skills of Australians, the TAFE system generates another flow of benefits worth $84.9 billion per year in higher incomes and productivity. Those benefits are shared by workers in higher incomes, firms in higher profits, and federal and state governments – which receive $25 billion per year in extra tax revenues. Finally, another $1.5 billion in fiscal savings are enjoyed by governments through reduced costs for health and welfare benefits for TAFE graduates. Altogether, the TAFE system drives $92.5 billion in benefits per year – equal to almost 5% of Australia’s GDP.

    The report finds despite chronic underfunding, Australia’s historic investment in the TAFE system continues to generate an enormous and ongoing dividend to the Australian economy. Increased public investment in the skills and earning capabilities of Australians will be critical to our post-pandemic recovery.

    Key Findings:

    • Australia’s historic investments in quality TAFE education supports a combined and ongoing flow of total economic benefits worth $92.5 billion to the Australian economy in 2019 — 16 times greater than the annual ‘maintenance’ costs Australia currently reinvests in the TAFE system.
    • The presence and activity of TAFE institutes ‘anchors’ over $6 billion per year in economic activity and 48,000 jobs from the direct operation of the TAFE system and its supply chain, and ‘downstream’ consumer spending impacts.
    • The TAFE-trained workforce generates $84.9 billion per year in higher incomes and business productivity. $49.3 billion is paid in additional earnings to TAFE-credentialed workers (relative to earnings of workers without post-school training); businesses receive $35.6 billion in increased profits from a more productive TAFE-trained workforce.
    • The costs of delivering TAFE are modest – only $5.7 billion per year, or 0.3% GDP. Extra tax revenues received by governments thanks to the superior productivity and incomes of TAFE-trained workers alone are worth $25 billion per year: 4.4 times more than the total costs of running the TAFE system.
    • The TAFE system increases employability and lowers unemployment. TAFE graduates enter the labour force with better employment prospects and skills. The increased labour force participation and employability of TAFE graduates corresponds to additional employment of 486,000.
    • The TAFE system promotes wider social benefits critical to addressing inequality. TAFE helps ‘bridge’ access to further education and jobs pathways in regional areas and for special and at-risk youth groups. TAFE students are more likely to come from low-income households and identify as Aboriginal compared with private VET providers.

    “Australia will squander the demonstrated economic benefits generated by our investments in the TAFE system, and unnecessarily limit our post-COVID recovery if we don’t act quickly to reinstate the critical role that TAFE plays in the VET system,” said Alison Pennington, senior economist at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.  

    “The Australian economy is reaping an enormous flow of economic benefits from a VET ‘house’ built by the TAFE system. But the ‘house’ that TAFE institutes built is crumbling. If Australia wants to secure the benefits of a superior, productive TAFE-trained workforce as we prepare for post-COVID reconstruction, the damage must be repaired quickly.

    “Major public skills investments will be best coordinated by TAFE institutes as the longest-standing and most reliable ‘anchors’ of vocational training and must be at the centre of an economic reconstruction process.

    “By providing bridges to further education and jobs for regional, low-income and at-risk youth groups, the TAFE system is critically important to addressing systemic inequality in Australia’s economy and society.”


    Related research



    An Investment in Productivity and Inclusion



    Full report

  • An Investment in Productivity and Inclusion

    Education & Training

    An Investment in Productivity and Inclusion

    The Economic and Social Benefits of the TAFE System
    by Alison Pennington

    Author

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Media release



    TAFE system supports $92.5 billion in annual economic benefits

    The COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in an era of unprecedented disruption and transition. Increased public investment in the skills and earning capabilities of Australians will be critical to our post-pandemic recovery.

    This report from the Centre for Future Work finds despite chronic underfunding and failed market-led VET policies, Australia’s historic investment in the TAFE system continues to generate an enormous and ongoing dividend to the Australian economy. The TAFE system supports $92.5 billion in annual economic benefits through the direct operation of TAFE institutes, higher incomes and productivity generated by the TAFE-credentialed workforce, and reduced social benefits costs.

    “The Australian economy is reaping an enormous flow of economic benefits from a VET ‘house’ built by the TAFE system. But the ‘house’ that TAFE institutes built is crumbling. If Australia wants to secure the benefits of a superior, productive TAFE-trained workforce as we prepare for post-COVID reconstruction, the damage must be repaired quickly,” said Alison Pennington, Senior Economist with the Centre for Future Work and author of the report.

    The report adopts a multidimensional approach to measuring the wide economic and social benefits of the TAFE system resulting from Australia’s historic investments in public vocational education. Over $6 billion in economic activity and 48,000 jobs are supported by the direct operation of TAFE institutes and the TAFE supply-chain. Through its accumulated contribution to the employability and skills of Australians, the TAFE system generates another flow of benefits worth $84.9 billion per year in higher incomes and productivity. Those benefits are shared by workers in higher incomes, firms in higher profits, and federal and state governments – which receive $25 billion per year in extra tax revenues. Finally, another $1.5 billion in fiscal savings are enjoyed by governments through reduced costs for health and welfare benefits for TAFE graduates. Altogether, the TAFE system drives $92.5 billion in benefits per year – equal to almost 5% of Australia’s GDP.

    “Australia will squander the demonstrated economic benefits generated by our investments in the TAFE system, and unnecessarily limit our post-COVID recovery if we don’t act quickly to reinstate the critical role that TAFE plays in the VET system.”

    Key Findings:

    • Australia’s historic investments in quality TAFE education supports a combined and ongoing flow of total economic benefits worth $92.5 billion to the Australian economy in 2019 — 16 times greater than the annual ‘maintenance’ costs Australia currently reinvests in the TAFE system.
    • The presence and activity of TAFE institutes ‘anchors’ over $6 billion per year in economic activity and 48,000 jobs from the direct operation of the TAFE system and its supply chain, and ‘downstream’ consumer spending impacts.
    • The TAFE-trained workforce generates $84.9 billion per year in higher incomes and business productivity. $49.3 billion is paid in additional earnings to TAFE-credentialed workers (relative to earnings of workers without post-school training); businesses receive $35.6 billion in increased profits from a more productive TAFE-trained workforce.
    • The costs of delivering TAFE are modest – only $5.7 billion per year, or 0.3% GDP. Extra tax revenues received by governments thanks to the superior productivity and incomes of TAFE-trained workers alone are worth $25 billion per year: 4.4 times more than the total costs of running the TAFE system.
    • The TAFE system increases employability and lowers unemployment. TAFE graduates enter the labour force with better employment prospects and skills. The increased labour force participation and employability of TAFE graduates corresponds to additional employment of 486,000.
    • The TAFE system promotes wider social benefits critical to addressing inequality. TAFE helps ‘bridge’ access to further education and jobs pathways in regional areas and for special and at-risk youth groups. TAFE students are more likely to come from low-income households and identify as Aboriginal compared with private VET providers.

    “Major public skills investments will be best coordinated by TAFE institutes as the longest-standing and most reliable ‘anchors’ of vocational training and must be at the centre of an economic reconstruction process.”

    “By providing bridges to further education and jobs for regional, low-income and at-risk youth groups, the TAFE system is critically important to addressing systemic inequality in Australia’s economy and society.”



    Full report

    Share

  • Post-COVID Manufacturing Renewal Represents Potential $50 Billion Boost to Economy

    Post-COVID Manufacturing Renewal Represents Potential $50 Billion Boost to Economy

    Share

    New research from the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work reveals that Australia ranks last among all OECD countries for manufacturing self-sufficiency. While this indicator confirms the dramatic decline of domestic manufacturing in recent years, it also reveals the enormous potential benefits that would be generated by rebuilding manufacturing back to a size proportional to our national needs: including $180 billion in new sales, $50 billion in additional GDP, and over 400,000 new jobs.

    Key Findings:

    • Australia ranks last in manufacturing self-sufficiency among all OECD countries. Australians use $565 billion worth of manufactures each year, however, we only produce $380 billion. Therefore, Australia produces only 68% (just over two-thirds) of what we use: less than any other OECD economy.
    • The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the strategic importance of domestic manufacturing capacity. Disruptions in global supply chains and protectionist trade policies by foreign governments have increased risks we might not be able to access essential products (like health equipment and supplies) when we need it.
    • Manufacturing is not just ‘another’ sector of the economy. For several concrete reasons, manufacturing carries strategic importance to broader national prosperity and security.
      • Australians purchase and use more manufactured goods over time; and manufacturing output is growing around the world. Allowing domestic manufacturing to decline, while our use of manufactured products grows, undermines national economic performance.
      • Manufacturing is the most innovation-intensive sector in the whole economy. No country can be an innovation leader without a strong manufacturing base.
      • Manufactured goods account for over two-thirds of world merchandise trade. A country that cannot successfully export manufactures will be shut out of most trade.
      • Manufacturing anchors hundreds of thousands of other jobs throughout the economy, thanks to its long and complex supply chain. Billions of dollars’ worth of supplies and inputs are purchased by manufacturing facilities, supporting many other sectors of the economy.
      • Manufacturing offers high-quality jobs, full-time hours and above-average incomes. And thanks to strong productivity growth and the capacity to apply modern technology, manufacturing offers the prospect of rising incomes in the future.

    “As Australian governments and business leaders realise the importance of manufacturing in rebuilding the national economy after COVID, this research shows that Australia now has the smallest manufacturing industry relative to domestic purchases of any OECD country,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work and author of the report.

    “These findings confirm the enormous task ahead of the country in rebuilding our domestic manufacturing capacity. However, it also highlights the enormous economic benefits that would be generated by getting manufacturing back to a proportional size: including $180 billion in new sales, $50 billion in new GDP, and over 400,000 new direct jobs.

    “While two-way international trade in manufactured products will always be essential, as a nation we should be manufacturing in aggregate as much as we are using. If we rebuilt a manufacturing sector that was broadly proportionate to our needs, our manufacturing industry would grow by almost 50% – generating enormous benefits in jobs, incomes, innovation and exports.”


    Related research



    A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing



    Report summary



    Full report

  • A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing

    COVID-19, Industry & Sector Policies

    A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing

    Manufacturing Renewal for the Post-COVID Economy
    by Jim Stanford

    Author

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    Post-COVID Manufacturing Renewal Represents Potential $50 Billion Boost to Economy

    New research from the Centre for Future Work reveals that Australia ranks last among all OECD countries for manufacturing self-sufficiency. The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded Australians of the importance of being able to manufacture a full range of essential equipment and supplies; and the COVID recession has created a large economic void that a revitalised manufacturing sector could help to fill in coming years.

    This report, A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing, describes the strategic importance of the manufacturing sector to Australia’s future prosperity, and provides an inventory of policy tools that could help rebuild the sector to a size proportional to our domestic needs for manufactured products.

    While the report documents the decline of domestic manufacturing in recent years, it also reveals the enormous potential benefits that would be generated by rebuilding manufacturing back to a size  proportional to our national needs: including $180 billion in new sales, $50 billion in additional GDP, and over 400,000 new jobs.

    Key Findings:

    • Australia ranks last in manufacturing self-sufficiency among all OECD countries. Australians use $565 billion worth of manufactures each year, however, we only produce $380 billion. Therefore, Australia produces only 68% (just over two-thirds) of what we use: less than any other OECD economy.
    • The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the strategic importance of domestic manufacturing capacity. Disruptions in global supply chains and protectionist trade policies by foreign governments have increased risks we might not be able to access essential products (like health equipment and supplies) when we need them.
    • Manufacturing is not just ‘another’ sector of the economy. For several concrete reasons, manufacturing carries a strategic importance to broader national prosperity and security.
      • Australians purchase and use more manufactured goods over time; and manufacturing output is growing around the world. Allowing domestic manufacturing to decline, while our use of manufactured products grows, undermines national economic performance.
      • Manufacturing is the most innovation-intensive sector in the whole economy. No country can be an innovation leader without a strong manufacturing base.
      • Manufactured goods account for over two-thirds of world merchandise trade. A country that cannot successfully export manufactures will be shut out of most trade.
      • Manufacturing anchors hundreds of thousands of other jobs throughout the economy, thanks to its long and complex supply chain. Billions of dollars’ worth of supplies and inputs are purchased by manufacturing facilities, supporting many other sectors of the economy.
      • Manufacturing offers high-quality jobs, full-time hours and above-average incomes. And thanks to strong productivity growth and the capacity to apply modern technology, manufacturing offers the prospect of rising incomes in the future.

    If we rebuilt a manufacturing sector that was broadly proportionate to our needs, our manufacturing industry would grow by almost 50% – generating enormous benefits in jobs, incomes, innovation and exports.



    Report summary



    Full report

    Share

  • Victorian Inquiry Offers Novel Routes to Regulating Gig Work

    Victorian Inquiry Offers Novel Routes to Regulating Gig Work

    by Alison Pennington

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Share

    Findings from a landmark inquiry commissioned by the Andrews Victorian government into the work conditions in the “on demand” (gig) economy have been released. The report’s findings are timely with COVID-era unemployment surging and an expanding pool of vulnerable workers relying on “gig” work to meet living costs.

    This commentary outlines the key findings of the On-Demand Inquiry.

    Victorian Inquiry Offers Novel Routes to Regulating Gig Work

    Findings from a landmark inquiry commissioned by the Victorian government into the work conditions in the “on demand” (gig) economy have been released. The Inquiry confirms workplace laws have failed to keep pace with economic change.

    Release of the report’s findings are timely with COVID-era unemployment surging and an expanding pool of vulnerable workers relying on “gig” work to meet living costs. How do platform “digital sweatshops” work?

    Platform business models recruit workers without access to secure and better compensated jobs (especially migrant and young workers). Jobs performed are often menial and without adequate safety protections. Gig workers lack stable work schedules or incomes, and receive wages that often fall well-below social norms and legal minimums.

    The major recommendations by the Inquiry chaired by former Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James include:

    • A more systematic application of the “work test” currently used to classify workers as employees or independent contractors by codifying the test in the Fair Work Act (rather than common law). This would create a nationally coherent framework for extending protections including minimum pay and conditions to gig workers genuinely working for another’s business.
    • Alter competition laws and establish a new industry Award to enable gig workers to bargain collectively with platforms.
    • Strengthen the gig work regulatory regime through industry codes of conduct between platforms, governments and unions for non-employee gig workers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and allow an independent tribunal to oversee work status determinations.

    We commend the Inquiry on the ambitious scale of the investigation, and the innovative pathway proposed for gig work regulation.

    Three Centre for Future Work reports on gig work in Australia were cited in the final report. Research by Director Jim Stanford (with Andrew Stewart from University of Adelaide) featured in the report’s major recommendation that collective bargaining rights be extended to gig workers to lift pay and conditions of gig work.

    Read our full submission to the Inquiry — Turning Gigs Into Decent Jobs — by Jim Stanford and Alison Pennington.


    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