Tag: Fiona Macdonald

  • The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work

    Labour mobility is a significant contributor to Pacific Islands’ economies.

    Australia and New Zealand’s temporary labour migration schemes for Pacific workers have expanded into more industries including personal care work in aged care.

    This has led to the loss of skilled health workers from Pacific Island countries, including registered nurses, to lower-skilled personal care jobs overseas.

    Workers who take up temporary migration in Australia and New Zealand are vulnerable to being underpaid and exploited, due to their visa status.

    This report examines the need for reform of labour migration systems and greater consultation with workers.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Australia dumps its care crisis on the Pacific – new report

    Share

  • Addressing the health workforce crisis in the Pacific

    Labour mobility is a significant contributor to Pacific Islands’ economies.

    Australia and New Zealand’s temporary labour migration schemes for Pacific workers have expanded into more industries including personal care work in aged care.

    This has led to the loss of skilled health workers from Pacific Island countries, including registered nurses, to lower-skilled personal care jobs overseas.

    Workers who take up temporary migration in Australia and New Zealand are vulnerable to being underpaid and exploited, due to their visa status.

    This report examines the need for reform of labour migration systems and greater consultation with workers.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Australia dumps its care crisis on the Pacific – new report

    Share

  • Too much work and too few paid hours?

    Too much work and too few paid hours?

    Go Home On Time Day 2025
    by Fiona Macdonald

    Widespread dissatisfaction with paid work hours, and employees working excessive unpaid overtime, are two of the key findings of the 2025 Go Home on Time Day (GHOTD) survey. The annual survey, undertaken by the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute in early September, asked 1,001 Australian workers about their paid working hours and preferences and about any unpaid overtime they worked.

    The findings of the 2025 survey, marking the seventeenth Go Home on Time Day, are not dissimilar to the 2024 survey findings. A large minority of Australian workers would prefer either more or fewer paid work hours. Mostly, workers who are dissatisfied with their hours want more paid work hours (44% of all workers), while a smaller group (14%) want less paid work time.  Alongside the desire for more work many employees are working several hours of unpaid overtime each week. This is the case for employees of all ages and for men and women across most industries and occupations. The 2025 GHOTD survey found, on average, employees work unpaid overtime of 3.6 hours a week, equivalent to 173 hours, or over 4.5 weeks, a year. Paid at the median wage rate this amounts to a financial cost to each worker of $7,930 per year; in total a loss of $95.78 billion.

    A positive finding from the 2025 survey is that unpaid overtime among full-time employees appears to be continuing a slow decline, noted in 2024. This suggests the “Right to Disconnect” legislation, introduced for employees in large organisations in August 2024, may be having its intended impact. The legislation was only extended to small businesses in August 2025, so we might expect to see further declines in unpaid overtime in 2026. A less positive finding is that unpaid overtime is high among part-time and casual employees, many of whom are younger workers. The costs of unpaid overtime to these workers are substantial–especially when considered as a proportion of their paid work time, given their shorter paid work hours and often lower pay rates.

    Read the full report



    Full report

    Share

  • Working from Home, Not a Problem

    More than one in three workers in Australia usually work from home at least some of the week. Working from home has become an established working arrangement for many employees in jobs where it is possible to work remotely. Yet, there is strong opposition from some employers to working from home and regular reports of pressure from organisations to wind back this work arrangement.

    During the lead up to the 2025 federal election we have heard a lot about working from home arrangements as the Coalition adopted a policy for all Commonwealth public servants to work from the office five days a week. The policy has been abandoned but it is not clear that the Coalition have changed their views on this flexible work option, having said it created inefficiencies, has harmed productivity and is much more common in the public than in the private sector. But is there any evidence supporting these views?

    In this briefing paper we review the evidence on working from home, addressing the questions: Who works from home and why? Who benefits from working from home arrangements? Why do some employers (and politicians) want workers back in the office? What is the future for work from home arrangements?

    We find working from home is a flexible work option that has benefits for workers and for organisations, and it contributes to more inclusive and gender-equal workforce participation and a more productive economy. Working from home arrangements may require some workplace adaptation including requiring managers to work differently. However these challenges should not get in the way of the many benefits that working from home and other flexible work arrangements offer.



    Full report

    Share

  • Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    Share

    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 very little in this budget that is new, other than some surprise tax cuts, which are welcome given they mostly benefit people on low incomes

    There are continuing investments in some key areas supporting wages growth where it is solely needed and for rebuilding important areas of public good. However, there remains much that needs to be done in the next parliament, whoever is in government.

    “The budget does deliver a welcome tax cut targeted towards those on low incomes” Chief Economist Greg Jericho notes, “but the lack of new spending and initiatives highlights the need for policies from all political parties in the coming election campaign that address inequality and the needs of people who have been most hurt by cost of living rises over the past three years.”

    Read our full budget briefing paper for more information


    Related research

    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

  • Budget briefing paper 2025-2026

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget.

    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 very little in this budget that is new other than the surprise tax cuts, which are welcome given they benefit mostly those on low-incomes. There are continuing investments in some key areas supporting wages growth, where it is sorely needed, and rebuilding important areas of public good. However, there remains much that needs to be done in the next parliament.

    This briefing paper reviews some of the main features of the budget, focusing on those aspects targeting and impacting on workers, working lives and labour markets.

    The establishment of a $1 billion Green Iron Investment Fund to provide capital grants to green iron projects is a significant investment. With $500 million of this fund going to the troubled Whyalla steelworks this investment should ensure ongoing integrity in the management of this vital industrial asset. We believe the government should take a significant ongoing stake in the ownership of the Whyalla steelworks. The $2 billion Green Aluminium Production Credit, to incentivise Australian aluminium smelters to switch to renewable electricity before 2036, is a necessary and welcome policy to assist the transition to a low emissions economy. Unfortunately, the credit is not available until 2028-2029.

    New and ongoing support for students in TAFE and in higher education are important cost-of-living measures while also making education and training more inclusive and accessible. There is some new funding for previously announced initiatives that support workers and wages growth and some funding for new wage increases in the female-dominated, and low-paid, aged care and early childhood education and care sectors; demonstrating the government’s commitment to addressing long-standing undervaluation of feminised care occupations. Continuing government support will be needed as the current Fair Work Commission review of awards to address undervaluation progresses.

    Other reforms in ECEC, along with previously announced changes to paid parental leave and carer payments, provide welcome, but belated, support for working parents and carers. It is disappointing to see that the opportunity has been missed to raise Job Seeker and Youth Allowances from their grossly inadequate levels.



    Full report

    Share

  • Taking up the Right to Disconnect? Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime

    Taking up the Right to Disconnect? Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime

    Go Home on Time Day 2024 Update
    by Fiona Macdonald

    This year marks the sixteenth annual Go Home on Time Day (GHOTD), an initiative of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute, that shines a spotlight on the maldistribution of working hours and the scale of unpaid overtime worked by Australians.

    The Australian labour market has remained relatively strong over 2024 although interest rate rises have pushed unemployment to over four per cent. Recent growth in wages has not been enough to take pressure off household budgets, or to offset the major reductions in real wages that occurred following the COVID pandemic. Across the economy, large numbers of workers want more paid work hours. However, the underemployment problem co-exists with overwork and with unpaid overtime that contributes to the loss of substantial amounts of income for working households.

    During the past two years there has been a great deal of public attention and debate about a right to disconnect from work outside work hours. New “Right to Disconnect” laws came into effect in August 2024. While it is early days, these laws could already be having a positive impact including through raised awareness that workers should be free to enjoy their personal time without work demands. Our research indicates that unpaid overtime hours were fewer in 2024 than in previous years, both pre- and post-COVID pandemic years.

    Unpaid overtime
    On average, employees reported they performed 3.6 hours of unpaid work in the week of the survey, equivalent to       10.9% of total working hours.  This unpaid overtime equates to 188 hours per year per worker, or almost five standard 38-hour work weeks.

    •  If  unpaid overtime were valued at median wage rates, this means the average worker is losing $7,713 per year or $297 a fortnight.
    • At the economy-wide level, this equates to more than $91 billion of lost income per year.

    The personal and social costs of unpaid overtime, through working outside of normal hours, include negative consequences for health and wellbeing and relationships:

    • Four in ten workers report physical tiredness (42%) and feeling mentally drained (40%)A third of workers experience stress or anxiety (32%), and one in four experienced interference with personal life/relationships (29%).One in five workers experience disrupted sleep (22%).
      • One in three workers (36%) indicate that unpaid overtime is either expected or encouraged in their workplace.
    •  The most common reason for working outside scheduled work hours is too much work (41%), with the second most common reason being staff shortages when other staff are absent or on leave (31%).

    Dissatisfaction with working hours
    Across the whole labour market, almost half of all employed workers (45%) are unsatisfied with their working hours – wanting either more or fewer hours.
    o One in three workers (32%) reported that they wanted more paid hours. This desire was especially strong among workers in casual jobs (51%). Over four in ten workers (43%) aged 18 to 30 years of age wanted more paid hours.
    o Just over half of workers (55%) indicated their hours were about right.

    To calculate how much pay you are losing through unpaid overtime go to our unpaid overtime calculator at gohomeontimeday.org.au



    Full report

    Share

  • The 9 to 5 is back! Time to put the phone on silent

    Originally published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on August 26, 2024

    If you’ve ever flicked off an email before bed, texted your boss out of hours, or received an ‘urgent’ work call after clocking off, you’ll be glad to hear some respite is just around the corner.
    A new right to disconnect from work, for employees in businesses with 15 or more staff, comes into force across Australia from Monday 26th August. This is a welcome response to the growing problem of ‘availability creep’, where work demands spill over into workers’ leisure time.
    The new right means most employees can now refuse to monitor and respond to unreasonable contact from their employers about work matters outside of paid work hours.
    Many of us are now online and digitally connected to our workplaces 24/7. This constant connectedness can make it hard to escape work calls, texts, and emails when not actually at work.
    As we are now so easily contacted anywhere and anytime, our leisure and family time has become very susceptible to interruptions from work, leading to unpaid overtime, an inability to ‘switch off’, and blurred boundaries between work and non-work time. Gone are the days of 8 hours work, 8 hours rest, and 8 hours play.
    The consequences are stark. Research has shown these work practices lead to increased stress, health problems and a poor work-life balance.
    The right to disconnect from work is one solution to the problems of availability creep and unpaid overtime. The Senate Select Committee on Work and Care proposed this reform to Australia’s workplace laws in early 2023 and the initiative was included in the Government’s Closing Loopholes package of workplace reforms passed by the federal parliament later that year. A similar right is in place in a number of other countries including France, Canada and the Philippines.
    Australia’s new right to disconnect does not mean there is a blanket ban on contacting employees outside their scheduled work hours. Rather, it means that an employee cannot be penalised for refusing unreasonable contact.
    There are many circumstances in which a manager’s attempts to contact an employee out of their work hours might be reasonable. For example, this could be where an employee is on-call and receiving an on-call allowance. Some jobs regularly require a certain amount of out of hours contact and employees’ remuneration may reflect this. However, for many workers, contact out of working hours arises from pressures that lead to overwork and unpaid overtime.
    And unpaid overtime is a significant problem in Australia.
    In 2023 employees responding to a Centre for Future Work survey reported working an average of 5.4 hours of unpaid overtime a week, with full-time employees reporting working an average of 6.2 hours a week of unpaid overtime. A conservative back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that’s an extra seven weeks’ work every year.
    Workers should not have to monitor or respond to emails, text messages and phone calls after hours about concerns that could be raised and dealt with in their scheduled work time. Poor organisation, understaffing and reliance on overwork are not good reasons for requiring employees to be available out of hours. It is these practices that the right to disconnect is intended to challenge.
    Fears that workplace flexibility will be undermined as workers exercise their rights to disconnect are largely misplaced. In organisations where flexibility is based on employees’ constant availability there may be some disruption. But this is exactly the practices that the right to disconnect should disrupt.
    Flexibility can exist alongside respect for employees’ rights to switch off from work. Good flexible work practices and arrangements are those that benefit both employers and employees, and are designed through negotiation and consultation. The dissolution of boundaries between work and leisure time is not the answer.
    Will individual employees be lining up to ask the Fair Work Commission to order their employers to stop contacting them? Probably not. The real potential in the right to disconnect is its ability to catalyse an evolution in workplace expectations that shifts norms away from a reliance on overwork and constant availability.
    Time to put that phone on silent.


    You might also like

  • Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Inquiry into the Digital Transformation of Workplaces

    Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Inquiry into the Digital Transformation of Workplaces

    by Fiona Macdonald and Lisa Heap

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way we work and the jobs we do. AI innovations in workplaces can have positive benefits, including through productivity gains. However, AI applications can also have significant risks for workers and for job quality.
    AI applications, including automated decision making, are not neutral processes. Software can be designed and used to assist workers by augmenting their capacity and freeing up time for more meaningful or creative work. Or it can be designed and used in ways that intensify work and displace workers.
    International evidence shows the use of AI in workplaces for managing workers and work processes is extending and intensifying long-standing efficiency-driven logics that result in reduced autonomy and control and intensify work, undermining job quality and worker wellbeing. Even when designed for benevolent purposes, unintended consequences can arise from the adoption of AI in workplaces. These include serious breaches of privacy, bias and discrimination in recruitment and hiring, and unfair decision-making in performance measurement and evaluation.
    In this submission we argue that the promotion of AI innovation must not overshadow objectives and principles for decent jobs and fairness at work. We set out principles for new laws to regulate the uses of AI in workplaces with a goal of protecting workers.



    Full report

    Share

  • Budget 2024-25: Resists Austerity, Reduces Inflation, Targets Wage Gains

    Budget 2024-25: Resists Austerity, Reduces Inflation, Targets Wage Gains

    Important support to help with cost-of-living challenges, but more needed

    Commonwealth Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered his 2024-25 budget to Parliament. While it booked a surplus for 2023-24 (the second consecutive surplus), it increased total spending for future years, and forecasts continued small deficits. In the wake of the economic slowdown resulting from RBA interest rate hikes, this new spending is needed and appropriate.

    Targeted cost of living measures will directly reduce inflation in some areas (like energy and rents), while helping working Australians deal with higher prices in others (including reworked State 3 tax cuts, and support for higher wages for ECEC and aged care workers). Unlike previous years, the budget is projecting real wage gains in coming years that are actually likely to materialise — however, the damage from recent real wage cuts will take several years to repair, and further support for strong wage growth will be required, from both fiscal policy and industrial laws. The budget also spelled out initial steps in the government’s Future Made in Australia strategy to build renewable energy and related manufacturing industries; these steps are welcome but need to be expanded, and accompanied by strong and consistent measures to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels.

    Our team of researchers at the Centre for Future Work has parsed the budget, focusing on its impacts on work, wages, and labour markets. Please read our full briefing report.



    Full report

    Share