Tag: Fiona Macdonald

  • The key legislation changes that will help workers get a better deal

    Originally published in The New Daily on July 14, 2023

    In recent years, workers have been held back from demanding better working conditions and pay by a lack of bargaining power.

    However, with recent changes to industrial relations laws, and with unemployment at record low levels, some workers are now in a better position to bargain for better pay and conditions.

    Slow wages growth, low bargaining coverage and high levels of insecure work are good indicators of how workplace power imbalances have stifled prospects for many employees.

    Over the last decade Australia’s wage growth has been at its weakest since the middle of the last century, coverage of workers by enterprise agreements has rapidly eroded, and over a third of workers are now in insecure casual, labour hire or fixed-term jobs.

    Bargaining hobbled

    Despite low unemployment – meaning there are fewer workers available to fill vacancies – employees have not been able to bargain for higher pay and the real value of wages has been declining.

    Industrial relations reforms passed by parliament in late 2022 are designed to restore some balance to the workplace.

    The changes don’t mean there is a massive shift of power to workers but, with the removal of some barriers to bargaining, there should be greater opportunity for employees to gain improvements at work.

    At the present time, the labour market is tight and employers are competing to find and retain workers so they may be prepared to offer higher wages and other benefits.

    Already, unions representing early childhood education and care workers have applied to use a new multi-employer bargaining option – which came into force last month – to seek a pay increase for these low-paid workers.

    While it will be some time before we see any outcomes, there is early evidence that other bargaining reforms are getting workplace bargaining moving after years of decline. Certainly some employers may now be more ready to negotiate enterprise agreements to avoid being roped into multi-employer agreements.

    Other non-bargaining reforms introduced as part of the 2022 Secure Jobs, Better Pay package attracted much less attention than bargaining changes during last year’s debates over the new laws.

    However, these other changes are not insignificant for working conditions.

    The right to flexible work

    More than half of all employees now have new rights to request flexible work, including employees who are parents of children of school age or younger, carers and workers aged 55 or over, those with a disability or people experiencing or supporting someone experiencing family violence.

    Before the flexibility changes, which came into effect in June, some limited flexible work rights already existed. However, now there is much greater onus on employers to show there are reasonable business grounds if they wish to refuse employees’ requests for flexible work.

    While this is no guarantee that all employees can access the flexibility they need, it has potential to be a game-changer in some workplaces through pushing employers to find ways to organise work for greater employee-friendly flexibility.

    Research shows that Australians are some of the most stressed and overworked of all workers worldwide. We know we need better-work life balance.

    Post-pandemic, there is widespread experience of more flexible work arrangements and greater recognition of the benefits of flexible work.

    There is some impetus to lock in more employee-friendly flexibility, and workers are having some success in achieving these changes through collective bargaining.

    Working lives are longer than ever, including as the retirement age has just been increased to 67 years.

    Along with pay increases that stop the decline in the value of wages, bargaining for better work-life balance will continue to be important.


    You might also like

  • Unacceptable Risks

    Unacceptable Risks

    The Dangers of Gig Models of Care and Support Work
    by Fiona Macdonald

    The gigification of care is creating insecure work, undermining gender inequality and damaging workforce sustainability.

    New research reveals the unacceptable risks of digital labour platforms and the expansion of gig work in low-paid feminised care and support workforces. Risks are to frontline care and support workers, people receiving care and support and to workforce sustainability.

    The report calls for comprehensive industrial reforms to address gig work as part of broader workforce strategies for the NDIS and aged care sectors.

    The research finds that care and support ‘gig’ workers, treated as independent contractors, are in highly insecure work without minimum standards and effective rights to collective bargaining.

    • Many essential frontline care and support workers earn below award-level pay.
    • Work and incomes are insecure: work is on-demand, working time is fragmented, pay can be unpredictable.
    • Workers must cover their own superannuation, leave and workers’ compensation.
    • Gig work in the feminised workforces poses a serious threat to better recognition and equal pay.
    • Better jobs and careers for frontline workers are vital to closing the gender pay gap.

    Four in every 5 of the 240,000 aged care and disability support workers are women.

    • Care and support workers on platforms are younger, less experienced and more likely to be migrant workers.
    • Platform workers lack access to support, training and progression opportunities.
    • Gig workers lack employment benefits and entitlements, including leave and superannuation.

    Flexibility of work is only possible with short hours work and comes at the expense of decent pay and working conditions. Workers cannot earn a living wage.

    • Risks to workers are also risks to vulnerable people with disability and the elderly.
    • Care and support platform workers are isolated and largely invisible, working in private homes without organisational supervision, support, guidance or training.
    • Workers bear risks and responsibilities for care and support quality and client safety, including for highly vulnerable people.
    • Care labour platforms compete unfairly with other NDIS and aged care providers.
    • Unfair competition poses a significant threat to the sustainability of Australia’s long-term care systems.

    Platforms compete by avoiding the costs and risks of business fluctuations, of employing workers and of accountability for care and support quality and safety. Costs and risks are devolved to low-paid and insecure frontline workers. Platforms profit from retaining public funding that is intended to employ and pay essential workers fairly and to provide them with supervision and support.



    Full report

    Share

  • Don’t worry about a budget surplus, worry about a slowing economy

    Originally published in The Guardian on May 11, 2023

    Rather than be a budget that will fuel inflation, the budget is actually closer to austerity than stimulation

    The Budget announced this week by Treasurer Jim Chalmers revealed a projected surplus in 2022-23 before returning to a deficit in the future years. In response many commentators and economists have suggested that the budget is therefore expansionary and will fuel inflation. But as policy director, Greg Jericho notes in his Guardian Australia column given the projected slowing economy, if anything the budget should be more expansionary.

    Most of the claims around the budget fueling inflation are based on the movement of the budget from surplus in 2022-23 to deficit in 2023-24. And usually, this would suggest that the government is stimulating the economy. But when we look at the actual figures within the budget, the overwhelming reason for the shift from surplus is due to parameter changes relating to oil, gas, coal and iron ore prices. The spending measures the government is proposing are hardly expansionary at all. Their direct impact on total household income is minimal, and the largest spending is on reducing medical and energy bills rather than directly giving households more money.

    When we look at the forecasts for public demand growth we see a level of expansion that is more akin to an austere budget than one attempting to stimulate the economy.

    But when we also look at the forecasts for economic growth over the next two years we see an economy slowing quite abruptly in a world that is teetering on a global recession. In the past, such weak forecasts for household spending and GDP growth would have seen governments spending more and lifting economic growth.

    This budget appropriately deals with the concerns of inflation by directly lowering the costs of energy and medical bills – it demonstrates that governments do have a role to play in lowering inflation and that it need not be done purely by the traditional view that the government must slow the economy. The economy is already projected to slow, and by this time next year the calls will likely be less about why the budget is not in surplus and more about what is the government doing to simulate the economy


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

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

    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

  • Commonwealth Budget 2023-24

    Commonwealth Budget 2023-24

    Significant Progress for Workers, Much More to Do

    The Commonwealth government’s 2023-24 budget reveals a progressive government seeking to help lower paid workers and those struggling to pay bills, support public health care, and pursue investments towards a net zero economy. But it is very much a first step, and leaves much more work to be done to repair past harms done to workers, low-income Australians, public services and infrastructure, and the environment.

    This briefing reviews the main features of the budget from the perspective of workers and labour markets. Some of its measures are very positive, such as fiscal support for higher wages for aged care workers, increased JobKeeper benefits, and enhanced Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

    Contrary to concerns that a big-spending budget would exacerbate inflation, this budget will have little impact on overall aggregate demand. In fact, it will pro-actively reduce inflation through its new $500 energy relief plan. Contrary to conservative economists who claim this budget will fuel inflation, in reality the forecasts confirm historically slow growth in public demand in both 2022-23 and 2023-24.

    Despite these positive measures, the budget also contains disappointing aspects. Most importantly, the Stage 3 tax cuts remain on schedule. And while they are only set to begin in 2024-25, they hang over these budget figures like a dark spectre.

    The budget papers also confirm the economy is far from buoyant. The next 18 months are expected to see economic growth well-below average. Households are reacting to three years of falling real wages, and eleven painful increases in interest rates, by severely constraining consumer spending. Slowing job creation and declining real wages are taking their toll on overall economic growth, highlighting again that the key to a strong economy is strong employment and wage growth.

    Please read our research team’s full review of this historic budget.



    Full report

    Share

  • Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Jobseekers Experiencing Disadvantage

    Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Jobseekers Experiencing Disadvantage

    Workplace and Employment Barriers
    by Fiona Macdonald

    This report provides an overview of workplace and job-related factors found to act as barriers to sustainable and inclusive employment for people in groups likely to experience labour market disadvantage. Key findings are that job quality, working arrangements, inclusivity and opportunity for participation at work all matter for inclusive and sustainable employment, along with individual and external systemic and structural barriers to work.

    Employment policy and employment assistance for jobseekers focus on individuals’ skills and job readiness, and on job placement. Less attention is given to ensuring placements are into sustainable employment in inclusive workplaces. That is, placement into jobs that people can keep, that support wellbeing and provide opportunity for long-term employment pathways, and in workplaces where people feel safe and are able to participate. Recruiting and placing people experiencing labour market disadvantage into jobs may not lead to positive outcomes if people are not able to retain jobs and benefit from their employment.

    Employment can provide people with benefits that improve wellbeing in various ways, including through increasing income, providing routine and increasing social contact. However, where job quality, pay or working conditions are poor, employment can also have cumulative negative effects. Placing people experiencing disadvantage in jobs in which they are insecure, underemployed, or cannot establish daily routines; or placing them in workplaces in which they experience poor or discriminatory treatment and disempowerment, are not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes or create social value.

    This report calls for a greater focus on workplace and job-related factors, including employer knowledge, employment practices, work organisation, job quality and employment arrangements, to addressing barriers to employment for disadvantaged jobseekers. Emphasis on employment placement alone is not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes. Action is required to tackle barriers present in workplaces and in employment arrangements.

    This report was commissioned by Jobsbank, a Victorian-based not-for-profit organisation that works with business and other partners to support sustainable, inclusive employment and make social procurement work. In Victoria, the Government’s Social Procurement Framework aims to improve employment outcomes for people from groups experiencing labour market disadvantage through requiring suppliers and contractors tendering for high value government contracts to employ people from these groups. The Victorian Government’s Fair Jobs Code promotes fair labour standards, secure employment and job security, equity and diversity, and cooperative workplace relationships and workers’ representation. This report recommends that employers be encouraged to develop strategies to meet these standards through collaboration with unions and community groups as one obvious way to address workplace and employment factors that create barriers to sustainable and inclusive employment for disadvantaged jobseekers.



    Full report

    Share

  • A new tool reveals how badly the Stage 3 cuts mismanage the budget

    Originally published in The Guardian on January 12, 2023

    The Stage 3 tax cuts will cost $300bn in their first 9 years. A new tool shows how we can spend the money better

    Just before Christmas last month the Parliamentary Budget Office released a “Build Your Own Budget” tool that reveals the interactions of taxes, spending and economic conditions that go into determining the budget balance.

    While the tool is an invaluable device for economists, its real value as noted by Labour Market and Fiscal Policy Director Greg Jericho, is how it highlights the massive cost of the Stage 3 tax cuts.

    In his Guardian Australian column, Jericho notes that the Stage 3 tax debate has become about all-or-nothing rather than realising the $300bn cost of the tax cuts over 9 years provides an opportunity for the Albanese government to amend the tax cuts and also increase support for benefits and government services.

    The Stage 3 tax cuts are so expensive that the PBO’s budget tool reveals you could raise Jobseeker from its current rate of $668 a fortnight to $1,925 and the budget deficit in 2032-33 would still be lower than it is currently predicted to be with the Stage 3 tax cuts.

    The Stage 3 tax cuts could be amended to reduce the 32.5% tax rate for earnings between $45,000 to $120,000 to 30% and still raise the top tax threshold from $180,000 to $200,000. These still very large tax cuts would cost $120bn less over the first 9 years than would the Stage 3 cuts. That would enable the government to, for example, increase Jobseeker to $1,025 and still have a better budget position than current predicted with the Stage 3 cuts.

    This highlights just how many options are available to the government.

    Budget are about choices, government is about choices. The Albanese government has a massive choice to make – either continue with the Stage 3 tax cuts that massive hit the budget for little reason other than to hand wealthy people a huge tax cut, or it can take this opportunity to create a fairer economy and society.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

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

  • Inequality and poverty is a policy choice – and the Stage 3 tax cuts will make both worse

    Originally published in The Guardian on December 15, 2022

    When you reduce the revenue available to fund government services, you inevitably increase inequality

    Much has been made in the debate around the Stage 3 Tax Cut that the cuts themselves massively favour the wealthy and make our income tax system less progressive. But as Policy Director, Greg Jericho, notes in his Guardian Australia column the latest survey of Household Income Distribution reveals that is only the beginning of the problem.

    Taxation works to redistribute the national income, but taxes alone play only a small part. The real work in lowering inequality and raising people out of poverty comes from government benefits and crucially the provision of government services like public health and education.

    The poorest 20% of households have just 4.1% of all private household income in Australia. After taxes, this rises to 4.7%. Once you include government benefits it rises even more to 8.1%. But when you also include the dollar value of public education, health and other government services it rises to 12.1%.

    Without properly funded broad government services, Australia’s society would be much less equal as low t middle income households would be forced to battle the private sector for access to vital services.

    Given the massive cost of the Stage 3 tax cuts, which in their initial year cost $17.7bn – roughly the same as the cost of the PBS, and $6.2bn more than the federal government will spend that year on public schools – the policy threatens to not just make the tax system less fair, it will also significantly affect the ability of the government to provide the necessary services that create a better and fairer society.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

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

    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

  • Collective Bargaining and Wage Growth in Australia

    Collective Bargaining and Wage Growth in Australia

    by Jim Stanford, Fiona Macdonald and Lily Raynes

    The reforms proposed in the Secure Jobs, Better Wages bill represent important but incremental steps in restoring a better balance of bargaining power between workers and employers, and lifting wage growth back toward a normal and healthier pace.

    The measures provided here will not suddenly transform Australia in the image of leading OECD countries, where centralised and coordinated collective bargaining covers most workers, and wage outcomes are much more equal as a result. But they would support a gradual restoration of collective bargaining coverage, consistent with practices in other countries where bargaining still occurs mostly at the enterprise level – but where some broader bargaining and coordination is possible. On that basis, and over several years, this should result in a partial restoration of bargaining coverage lost over the past decade, and a corresponding (but still incomplete) recovery in wage growth.



    Full report




    Factsheet
    Paying for Collective Bargaining

    Share

  • Multi-Employer Bargaining Necessary for Fixing Wages Crisis

    Originally published in The Conversation on November 14, 2022

    Proposed reforms to Commonwealth industrial relations laws would create more opportunities for collective bargaining to occur on a multi-employer basis, rather than being limited solely to individual workplaces or enterprises. Business groups have attacked this proposal as a dramatic change that would supposedly spark widespread work stoppages and industrial chaos.

    But as our Policy Director Fiona Macdonald argues in this new commentary for The Conversation, multi-employer bargaining is already allowed under various existing provisions of the Fair Work Act. The problem is that those provisions do not work. For example, the low-paid bargaining stream in the Fair Work Act has yet to result in a single multi-employer agreement, due to its stringent conditions and inconsistent application by the Fair Work Commission.

    Dr Macdonald argues that reforming these multi-employer bargaining streams so they can actually work will be an important part of any strategy to revitalise stagnant wages in Australia.

    For more details on the failure of existing multi-employer bargaining streams, and core principles for a stronger bargaining system, please also see the Centre for Future Work’s submission to the Senate inquiry on the Secure Jobs, Better Wages reform package (co-authord by Dr Macdonald, Jim Stanford, and Lily Raynes).


    You might also like

  • The October 2022-23 Commonwealth Budget: A Good Start… But Rocky Times Ahead

    The October 2022-23 Commonwealth Budget: A Good Start… But Rocky Times Ahead

    The new Albanese Labor government has tabled a revised budget for the 2022-23 fiscal year, revising revenue and spending forecasts originally contained in the March budget (from the previous Morrison government), and providing new funding to support several new programs and policies.

    In this review of the budget, our team of Centre for Future Work researchers evaluates the budget’s assumptions and policy measures, from the perspective of workers and labour markets. The budget marks a clear change of emphasis from budgets over the previous decade: including explicit recognition of the need to strengthen wage growth, new funding for vital care sectors, and important investments in diversifying Australia’s industrial base.

    However, the budget also acknowledges the downside risk of a slowing world economy, which could engulf Australia in another recession — just three years after entering the COVID pandemic. Stronger fiscal measures and income supports will be required if the economy does enter a downturn. And deep problems such as falling real wages, entrenched poverty, and gender inequality will require stronger measures than are included in this first budget. Meanwhile, crucial fiscal decisions (including the regressive Stage 3 tax cuts for high-income Australians) have been deferred for a later date.

    In sum, the budget marks a good start on addressing many of Australia’s key economic, social, and environmental challenges. But much more will be needed – and the risking of looming recession will complicate this progress considerably.



    Full report

    Share