Tag: Jim Stanford

  • Video: Myth & Reality About Technology, Skills & Jobs

    Video: Myth & Reality About Technology, Skills & Jobs

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    We are constantly told that the world of work is being turned upside down by ‘technology’: some faceless, anonymous, uncontrollable force that is somehow beyond human control. There’s no point resisting this exogenous, omnipresent force. The best thing to do is get with the program… and learn how to program! Acquiring the right skills (usually assumed to be STEM or computer skills) is the best way to protect yourself in this brave new high-tech future.

    But what if technology isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? And what if you invest in learning the current hot coding language, only to see it replaced by something totally different as soon as you graduate?

    In this 30-minute video, Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Dr. Jim Stanford takes on several myths related to technology and jobs.

    He argues that technology is neither exogenous nor neutral: innovation reflects the priorities (and the power) of those who have the resources to pay for it. By some indicators, jobs are becoming less technology-intensive — and this is undermining job security and living standards. Finally, we need a more holistic and democratic approach to skills and training: one that respects the all-round interests of workers as human beings (not just ‘producers’), and accepts that skills alone are no guarantee of decent, fair jobs in the future.

    The video is an excellent, free resource for adult education workshops, career development courses, and union meetings.


    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

  • Investing in Better Mental Health in Australian Workplaces

    Investing in Better Mental Health in Australian Workplaces

    by Liam Carter and Jim Stanford

    Australian society is experiencing an epidemic of mental illness that imposes enormous costs on individuals with poor mental health, their families, and the broader economy. There is no doubt that the stress, isolation and disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has made this crisis even worse.

    Unsafe workplaces contribute significantly to the incidence of mental illness and injury. Workplace factors which contribute to mental health problems include unreasonable job demands, exposure to violence and trauma, long or irregular working hours, an absence of worker voice and control, and bullying and harassment.

    New research from the Centre for Future Work suggests that by requiring stronger monitoring and prevention measures in Australian workplaces, a significant share of mental illness and injury could be avoided. In addition to reducing the toll of mental illness for workers and their families, these measures would also generate substantial economic and fiscal benefits.

    Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, one in five Australians reported mental health challenges of some sort. And the total costs of poor mental health on Australia’s economy, government, and society were estimated by the Productivity Commission (2020) at a staggering $200-220 billion per year.

    Studies indicate 15% to 45% of mental health problems experienced by employed people are attributable to conditions in their workplaces. This suggests that the costs of workplace-related mental illness and injury are enormous.

    Our new report surveys the range of different costs arising from workplace-associated mental ill health: including reduced labour force participation, absenteeism, reduced productivity, high employee turnover, workers compensation costs, and others. Total costs to society from workplace-associated mental illness (including direct costs to victims and their families, as well as economic and fiscal costs) are estimated at $15.8 billion to $17.4 billion per year.

    Preventing mental health problems caused by work-related factors and stressors would expand Australian GDP by $3.5 billion per year, and reduce government expenses (for health care and other services) by $2 billion per year.

    Unfortunately, Australia’s system of work health and safety laws does not treat workplace mental injuries with the same rigour and oversight as physical injuries. The current regulatory system does not specify explicit, enforceable requirements compelling employers to take mental health risks equally seriously – nor does it equip workers, their representatives, and regulators with the tools needed to ensure employers live up to those responsibilities.

    It is past time for Australia’s WHS policy-makers to address the mental health crisis in Australia’s workplaces head-on. Upcoming state-Commonwealth policy dialogues regarding reforms to Australia’s Model WHS Laws are a crucial opportunity to modernise Australia’s practices, and catch up with other industrial countries.

    The economic and fiscal benefits of preventing workplace-associated mental illness and injury are substantial – and would be shared by employers, governments and workers alike. But the human benefits of preventing needless mental health illness and injuries, for affected workers and their families, are priceless.



    Full report

    Share

  • Funding High-Quality Aged Care Services

    Funding High-Quality Aged Care Services

    by David Richardson and Jim Stanford

    Implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will require additional Commonwealth funding of at least $10 billion per year, and there are several revenue tools which the government could use to raise those funds.

    While the Royal Commission’s 148 recommendations were not explicitly costed, the Centre’s report shows that $10 billion per year (or around 0.5% of Australia’s GDP) would be the minimum required to move forward with the urgent reforms in regulation, employment practices, and quality benchmarks advised by the Commission.

    The report notes Australia’s public spending on aged care is much lower than other industrial countries with better records of aged care service. It also notes that Australia’s overall tax collections are also much smaller (by about 5% of GDP) than the OECD average, and have declined relative to Australia’s GDP in recent years.

    The Centre recommends that initial improvements in aged care funding should proceed immediately, even before new revenue measures are implemented. With the Commonwealth budget projected to incur major deficits for many years (due to the COVVID-19 pandemic and recession), it is neither necessary nor appropriate to fully ‘fund’ incremental aged care spending in the initial years of reform.

    Eventually, however, as economic and fiscal conditions stabilise, additional revenue sources will be important in underpinning high-quality aged care. The Centre’s report highlights five specific options for raising new funds – two of which were proposed by the respective Royal Commissioners:

    A 1 percentage-point medicare-style flat-rate levy (proposed by Royal Commissioner Briggs).
    A set of modest adjustments to personal income tax rates, preserving the existing progressivity of the system (similar to the proposal of Commissioner Pagone).
    Cancelling the legislated Stage Three income tax cuts scheduled to begin in 2024 (which deliver most savings to high-income households).
    Reforms in the treatment of capital gains and dividend income in the personal income tax system.
    Reforms to company taxes to eliminate loopholes and raise additional revenues.
    The government could use any one of these measures (or a combination of them) to support the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations.



    Full report

    Share

  • Missing a Stitch in Time:

    Missing a Stitch in Time:

    The Consequences of Underinvestment in Proper Upkeep of Australia’s Electricity Transmission and Distribution System

    Australia’s electricity industry constitutes a large and critical component of our national economic infrastructure. The industry produces $25 billion per year in value- added. It employs around 50,000 Australians, paying out $6 billion per year in wages and salaries. It makes $45 billion in annual purchases from a diverse and far-reaching supply chain, that provides the sector with inputs ranging from resources to equipment to construction to services.

    Most important, of course, the industry literally keeps the lights on: it provides an essential input, electric energy, without which no other industry could function and the safety and comfort of Australians would be immediatel jeopardised. In this regard, electricity is clearly an essential service: a utility vital to virtually everything else that occurs in the economy and society.

    Given that critical importance, we would assume that investing in the proper capitalisation, modernisation, upgrading and maintenance of this system would be a top priority of economic policy and corporate decision-making. Unfortunately, however, irrational and unintended consequences arising from the business-friendly, market-driven regulatory regime presently governing Australia’s electricity sector have produced exactly the opposite result. A structural pattern of sustained underinvestment in the upkeep and quality of the transmission and distribution grid is jeopardising the safety and reliability of the network – and harming both the people who work in this industry and the customers they serve.

    The present system was established on the assumption that profit-seeking behaviour of private businesses, with appropriate regulatory supervision, will best ensure an efficient allocation of resources, top quality service, and lowest possible prices for consumers. On every one of these grounds, however, the system has failed. Alongside chronic underinvestment in the system’s equipment and reliability, there is abundant evidence of an enormous waste of resources by self-dealing, rent-seeking corporate entities – diverting billions of dollars of expenditure away from necessary upkeep, redirected to ultimately unproductive activities (including overlapping corporate bureaucracies, frenetic selling and re-selling within the industry, and intense financialisation) that have nothing to do with the production and delivery of reliable, affordable energy. The national grid is unable to meet several challenges to its safety and reliability: including its ability to safely withstand extreme heat and severe weather events, and its capacity to adjust to the accelerating roll-out of variable and distributed renewable generation investments. The workforce in the industry has lost jobs and real incomes. And consumers (both residential and industrial) have faced an unprecedented and unjustified inflation of electricity prices.

    To be sure, this privatised, fragmented, and badly regulated industry has been consistently and increasingly profitable for its owners. Given the monopoly power these energy businesses have been granted over a critical piece of public infrastructure, these profits are hardly a surprise. What is surprising (and disappointing), however, is how Australia’s regulatory regime has failed to recognise and respond to these perverse outcomes. Despite growing evidence of deteriorating efficiency and reliability, and the inflation of both prices and profits, regulators continue with a business-as-usual approach to managing the industry. This approach routinely turns back legitimate requests for needed upgrades, modernisation, and maintenance on the system’s real capital base – while turning a blind eye to the rampant waste of resources on unproductive and self-serving corporate functions. Given the increasing pressures associated with climate change, more severe and frequent bushfires, population growth, and the shift to renewable generation, this business-as-usual approach cannot continue.

    A timeless adage reminds us that ‘a stitch in time saves nine.’ Prudent attention to maintaining productive assets in top quality condition, and upgrading capital in line with new technology and evolving best practices, is a hallmark of efficient and successful management. Australia’s electricity industry is controlled by self-seeking private businesses, and a few state-owned corporations directed to act just like them. They are governed by a regulatory system which places far too much faith in the inherent efficiency of private sector actors. Hence the industry is failing to make that stitch in time. Australians will pay the price for the chronic neglect of proper maintenance and upkeep of our electricity system in many ways: through a system that is inefficient, unreliable, cannot meet the challenges of the coming energy revolution, is unduly expensive to consumers, and which in many cases is unsafe for both workers and the public at large.

    This report provides evidence of a pattern of systematic underinvestment in the upkeep and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, drawing on three major sources of data:

    • A project to gather original qualitative data from dozens of power industry workers employed on the front lines of maintaining Australia’s transmission and distribution network. Their personal and professional experience attests to a widespread and sustained pattern of underinvestment and neglect, and provides worrisome details regarding the consequences of that underinvestment for the well-being of workers, communities, and the environment.
    • A review of other research and findings in the public domain (including several government commissions and inquries) regarding the importance of a top-quality, well-maintained electricity grid for our economy and society. These previous studies have also warned that the current system is falling behind in safe and efficient upkeep of its capital assets.
    • A review of available quantitative data – from the Australian Energy Regulator, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and from individual companies. This review confirms the steady decline in allocations of real resources to the capitalisation and good operating condition of the transmission and distribution grid. And it documents the erosion of real maintenance and upkeep according to several indicators, alongside evidence of unprecedented inflation in both electricity prices and industry profits.

    The main findings of this comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis include the following:

    • First-hand accounts from dozens of electricity sector workers in various roles and all parts of the country confirm the ongoing failure of the current system to allocate adequate resources to pro-active maintenance, upgrades, and safety, with serious consequences for workers, community safety, and the environment.
    • Real spending by the transmission and distribution sectors on operations and maintenance of the grid has been reduced by at least $1 billion per year since 2012.
    • Adjusted for inflation and the expanded base of customers in the network, real operating expenditures per customer have declined by 28-33 per cent since 2006.
    • Even within that contracting overall envelope of spending on maintenance and operations, several indicators confirm a reallocation of resources away from concrete system operation and maintenance, in favour of corporate overhead functions, re-selling, and financial activities.
    • The transmission and distribution system now employs 40 per cent more managers and office-based professionals than electricians.
    • Capital investment, spending on materials and equipment, capitalised own-use activity, and employment of electricians, linespersons, and related specialists have all declined markedly in the past several years.
    • Fundamental measures of efficiency in the industry (including total factor and average labour productivity) have also deteriorated, dragged down by misallocation of resources to corporate and overhead functions.
    • The squeeze on maintenance and upgrading expenses resulting from a combination of AER pressure and corporate profit-seeking has not produced savings for consumers. To the contrary, prices for both residential and industrial users have soared dramatically (almost doubling in real terms) since 2000.
    • High electricity prices have boosted revenues and profits in the industry – which have doubled in nominal terms since 2006, and grown substantially as a share of the industry’s total value-added. The AER’s superficial and ineffective oversight processes have not prevented private energy businesses from profiting through underinvestment in the industry’s asset base, and exploitation of consumers andworkers alike.

    After reviewing this worrisome evidence of systematic underinvestment in the quality and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, the report concludes with seven concrete recommendations to begin repairing and reversing these irrational and destructive outcomes. These include:

    1. AER determinations of allowable capital, upgrading and maintenance investments by regulated businesses should be ascertained on the basis of concrete bottom-up auditing of system capability, reliability and performance, undertaken by independent arms-length technical experts. Regulation of capital and maintenance expenditures needs to be ‘grounded’ in analysis of real-world challenges and constraints facing the system – including assessments of additional requirements arising from climate change and severe weather, risk mitigation (including bushfire prevention and vegetation management), and challenges related to the growth of distributed renewable generation. A broader economic benefit test should be applied to ensure the interests of workers and the community are factored into decision-making around capital investments and upkeep.
    2. Once appropriate levels of system capital and maintenance expenditures have been identified, explicit mechanisms must be established to reflect and recover those costs in regulated electricity prices.
    3. When adverse events (such as severe weather, bushfires, or other occurrences) necessitate capital or repair expenditures above and beyond previously approved regulated levels, provisions for additional cost recovery must also be accessible.
    4. Costing of capital installation, upgrading, and maintenance expenditure must take explicit account of the need for high-quality skilled, certified labour to perform that work – including appropriate wages, entitlements and working conditions in line with industry best practices.
    5. The accelerating transition to renewable energy sources, through both utility- scale projects and distributed sources, poses a unique and historic challenge to the capabilities of the national transmission and distribution grid. The AER, in conjunction with the AEMO and other industry bodies, should undertake a thorough assessment of the investments and system changes that will be required to meet the new requirements of an increasingly renewables-focused power system. This assessment must incorporate a broader economic and social cost-benefit lens, rather than the current narrowly-defined conception of economic costs. The findings of this assessment must then inform the AER’s subsequent determinations regarding allowable capital and maintenance expenditures by regulated businesses.
    6. Businesses which underspend allowed capital and maintenance budgets should be issued financial penalties which offset the impact of this underspending on their operating margins. This would eliminate the current perverse incentive for private transmitters and distributors to artificially suppress needed maintenance and upgrades in the interests of a short-term bonus over and above their already-substantial profit margins.
    7. The AER must undertake more detailed reviews of the submitted overhead, marketing, and financial activities of regulated energy businesses. Instead of providing blanket approval for whatever operating expenses companies deem to be in their interests, within an overall ceiling that is not differentiated with respect to specific cost activities, the regulator should focus on reducing the deadweight costs of duplicated, self-serving corporate bureaucracies.

    It is past time for those in charge of Australia’s electricity system – both private owners and government regulators – to acknowledge the widening tears in the fabric of this vital public service. And it is well past time for them to begin making the necessary repairs.



    Full report

    Share

  • Submission to Senate Inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020

    Submission to Senate Inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020

    by Alison Pennington and Jim Stanford

    In December 2020, the Senate of Australia launched an important inquiry into the federal government’s proposed Fair Work Amendment Bill.

    Core features of the legislation include clarifying and expanding employer power to hire workers on a casual basis, obtain greater flexibility in the use of permanent part-time workers (adjusting hours up or down without penalty, much like casual workers), and exercise greater unilateral wage-fixing influence in enterprise agreement (EA)-making.

    The Centre for Future Work were glad to make a submission to this inquiry. The submission assesses major components of the legislation, and finds measures proposed will result in the expansion of employer power to use insecure labour and low-wage enterprise agreements, placing further downward pressure on already record-low wages.

    Alison Pennington presented evidence in-person to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee in Adelaide on February 10th. A transcript of her testimony is attached below.

    Read the Centre for Future Work’s opening statement to the Senate Inquiry.

    The Fair Work Amendment Bill is introduced in a fragile moment in Australia’s history, with wages decelerating to the slowest sustained pace since the Depression – growing by less than 2% per year since 2015, and now at an utter standstill: growing just 0.1 per cent in the September quarter.

    In our judgment, several features of this legislation will enhance the power of employers to hire workers on a just-in-time basis, suppress wages, and undermine terms and conditions. Key measures proposed include:

    • Allowing employers to hire workers on a casual basis in virtually any position ‘deemed’ to be casual, with weak and inaccessible permanency conversion rights enabling long-term casual labour use.
    • Reduction in permanent part-time loadings and hours security, allowing employers to treat permanent workers as if they were casual (with the power to adjust hours up or down without penalty).
    • Exempting enterprise agreements from the ‘Better Off Overall Test’ (BOOT) allowing them to contravene Modern Award standards. This will increase below-Award agreement-making and “repurpose” enterprise bargaining into a mechanism for lowering wages and standards – rather than raising them.
    • Other measures aimed at the Fair Work Commission would accelerate the approval of low-quality enterprise agreements: including 21-day approval timelines, weakening of employer requirements to demonstrate that their staff have genuinely agreed to the EA, and restrictions on the participation of unions in the review process.

    Together, these changes would constitute a significant weakening of institutional supports for improving wages and working conditions. This is the opposite outcome to the stronger wage growth many economists (including Governor of the RBA Dr Phillip Lowe) agree is desperately needed to support Australia’s more sustainable and inclusive recovery.

    You can download the Centre for Future Work’s full submission to the Senate Inquiry below, authored by Senior Economist Alison Pennington, and Director and Economist Dr Jim Stanford.



    Full submission



    Transcript

    Share

  • Yes, lockdowns mean lost jobs. But data shows that not locking down causes much more economic damage

    Originally published in Toronto Star on January 16, 2021

    With new stay-at-home orders covering many parts of the province, Ontarians are settling in for a month (at least) of daunting isolation. Restrictions are also being tightened in other provinces to slow the spread of COVID-19, until vaccines can turn the tide of the pandemic.

    Despite accelerating infection and overflowing hospitals, many oppose the new restrictions on grounds that their economic costs are just too high. Business lobbyists grumble that health rules on retailers, airlines, cinemas, ski resorts, gyms, and more are onerous and unfair. Each sector invokes comparisons to others which supposedly get off easier. The common thread in their resistance is an assumption that strong health restrictions are deeply damaging the economy.

    As the pandemic rolls on, however, it is increasingly clear that the best way to protect the economy is to stop COVID. Yes: lockdowns reduce economic activity and employment. But not locking down, letting the virus run rampant, causes more economic damage — on top of the toll in lives and suffering. Anyone concerned about the economy should be pleading for fast, powerful lockdowns, not demanding a return to business-as-usual.

    The correlation between controlling contagion and economic recovery is clear across Canadian provinces: those with fewer COVID cases have achieved the strongest employment results since the pandemic hit. It’s not often that New Brunswick leads the nation in employment growth — but it did last year. Its near-elimination of the virus was the obvious reason.

    In this context, the protestations of premiers Doug Ford and Jason Kenney that fighting COVID must be “balanced” against the interests of business were always self-defeating. Even if they were motivated solely by desire to protect business, their top priority should have been stopping COVID. The faster and harder that battle was waged, the better business fared.

    The correlation between COVID suppression and economic performance is also obvious in international data. Several countries moved fast with severe but temporary restrictions on mobility and business; and they are now harvesting the fruits of their foresight. COVID-slaying nations like Australia, China, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan are already enjoying powerful and sustained economic recoveries. Their economies (forecast to grow by five to eight per cent this year) are racing far ahead of those still lurching from one wave of infection to the next.

    No one escaped the economic fallout of the pandemic. But after powerful action to suppress contagion, these countries are now recovering strongly and predictably. Elsewhere, the economic outlook is far less certain. In Canada, for example, our hopeful summertime recovery is already disintegrating: employment is now falling again. America, Britain, and other places where COVID suppression failed miserably are faring even worse.

    A particularly powerful illustration of the link between public health and economic recovery is provided by the experience of Victoria, the second largest state in Australia. After initial success limiting COVID-19’s spread, a second wave took hold in Melbourne (Victoria’s capital), infecting 600 people per day by early August. The state government ordered a strict lockdown, more severe than anything yet experienced in Canada: overnight curfew, closure of most workplaces, and strict bans on social gatherings and travel.

    The government was pilloried for its response — facing sustained attacks from its federal counterpart, business groups, and conservative commentators, all lamenting Victoria’s descent into “dictatorship.” Yet after 111 long days, Victoria achieved something almost unheard of: mass community spread was stopped, and new cases fell to zero by late October. Now the state economy is blossoming: employment rebounded 2.2 per cent in November alone, retail sales grew 22 per cent the same month, and Victorians are flocking back to restaurants, pubs, and malls. All those CEOs whining about Canada’s late and half-hearted restrictions must be drooling with envy.

    Leaders like Kenney and Ford were unduly influenced by short-sighted concern with business profits. Their reticence has created needless harm, for both public health and the economy. If we’d moved faster and more powerfully to limit contagion, business would already be better off.

    The economy is made up of human beings who work, produce, and consume. There’s no tradeoff between the economy and the health of those same human beings. The sooner we recognize they are one and the same, the sooner we can finally get serious about winning this battle.

    Jim Stanford, director of the Centre for Future Work in Vancouver, is a freelance contributing columnist for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jimbostanford


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

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

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

  • 2020 Year-End Labour Market Review: Insecure Work and the Covid-19 Pandemic

    2020 Year-End Labour Market Review: Insecure Work and the Covid-19 Pandemic

    by Dan Nahum and Jim Stanford

    Australia’s labour market experienced unprecedented volatility during 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting recession. In the first part of the year, employment declined faster and more deeply than in any previous economic downturn, as workplaces were closed to control the spread of infection. Then, after May, employment rebounded strongly. The subsequent recovery has replaced over 80% of the jobs lost in the initial downturn. While considerable ground remains to be covered to complete the employment recovery, the turn-around in the quantity of work has been encouraging.

    However, the pandemic also highlighted stark fissures in Australia’s labour market. The employment and income impacts of the pandemic were starkly unequal, across different groups of workers. This report highlights several ways in which the pandemic has increased inequality in Australia, and reinforced the dominance of insecure work in the overall labour market.



    Full report

    Share

  • Call for Applications: Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Fellow

    Call for Applications: Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Fellow

    Share

    As recently announced, the Centre for Future Work and the Australia Institute are honoured to house the Carmichael Centre, a new research centre recognising and continuing the legacy of union leader Laurie Carmichael. A key component of the Centre will be the Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Fellow, a research and educational position funded for an initial 3-year period.

    We have launched a search for the first Carmichael Fellow. Please see the below call for applications for further information. Applications close at midnight (AEDT) on Monday, 18 January. Thank you for your interest in the Carmichael Centre!


    Related documents



    Position description

    You might also like

    Job Opening: Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    by Jim Stanford

    The Carmichael Centre at the Centre for Future Work invites applications for the Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow position. It’s a three-year posting, with awesome potential to explore a range of progressive issues related to unions, collective bargaining, industrial policy, and workers’ education.

    Carmichael Centre Announces Appointment of Prof. David Peetz as Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    by Jim Stanford

    The Carmichael Centre at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work is proud to announce the appointment of Prof. David Peetz, one of Australia’s most outstanding labour policy experts, as the new Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow. Prof. Emeritus Peetz has recently retired from a long career at Griffith University, where he served as Professor

  • Employment Aspects of the Transition from Fossil Fuels in Australia

    Employment Aspects of the Transition from Fossil Fuels in Australia

    by Jim Stanford

    New research by the Centre for Future Work, commissioned by health care industry super fund HESTA, finds that a planned transition of Australia’s labour market away from fossil fuel jobs could occur without involuntary layoffs or severe disruption to communities—if governments focus on a planned and fair transition. That transition needs to include: a clear, long-term timeline, measures to facilitate inter-industry mobility and voluntary severance as fossil fuels are phased-out, and generous retraining and diversification policies.

    Released following the UN Climate Ambition Summit (12 Dec), which highlighted the need for Australia to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels, the report finds that delaying climate policy cannot protect the quantity or quality of fossil fuel jobs, which will inevitably decline as the global energy system shifts quickly to renewables. To best protect these workers and communities, pro-active transition planning must start now.

    Key findings of the report include:

    • With strong commitments to alternative employment creation (including, but not limited to, jobs in renewable energy projects), a transition away from fossil fuels can occur without involuntary layoffs or severe disruption to communities.
    • Direct employment in fossil fuel industries is relatively small, just 1% of total Australian employment, and in any single year the overall economy produces twice as many new jobs, as are employed in total in fossil fuel industries.
    • Health care and social services employs 13 times as many people as fossil fuels. At current rates, it would take just two years of new work in health care alone to fully offset all current jobs in fossil fuel industries.
    • Fossil fuel jobs are especially important in some communities, but the number of such communities is small. In just 11 out of 350 Australian communities do fossil fuel jobs make up over 5% of local employment. Strong, focused supports, paid for by the country as a whole, can help those communities adapt to the coming change.
    • Examples of previous transitions in other countries (including Germany, Canada, and Spain) confirm that fossil fuel sectors can be phased out with no involuntary redundancies.

    Dr Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work, and author of the report, highlighted the benefits of long-term planning, an announced timetable, and pro-active transition supports (including supported early retirement, job mobility across sites as fossil fuels phase out, and ambitious regional development and diversification efforts) to avoiding involuntary redundancies or economic damage to regional communities.

    “In fact if managed well, most people currently employed in the fossil fuel industry will not even need to find alternative work: as the industry gradually winds down, most will transition directly from fossil fuel work into retirement, or other forms of voluntary severance.”

    The report was commissioned by HESTA, the industry super fund in the health care sector, and a leader in adjusting its investment portfolio to be consistent with the movement toward net-zero emissions. Mary Delahunty, HESTA’s Head of Impact, noted that “Investment back into a nation’s ‘caring economy’ – health, education and social services – is the most effective way to stimulate economic activity and creates higher-quality, more sustainable, long-term growth.”

    “This report demonstrates that with appropriate investment this can go even further, supporting a manageable, sustainable phase-out of fossil fuel jobs,” Delahuunty added.

    “HESTA was the first major Australian super fund to commit to a total portfolio ‘net zero by 2050’ emissions target as part of our ambitious Climate Change Transition Plan. Supporting a planned transition is crucial to us achieving these ambitious goals and to protecting the long-term value of our members’ investments.”



    Full report

    Share

  • Profile: Combining Economics and Social Justice

    Profile: Combining Economics and Social Justice

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work’s Director Dr. Jim Stanford was recently profiled in a feature article published in In The Black, the journal of CPA Australia (the professional body for certified accountants in Australia). The profile, by journalist Johanna Leggatt, discusses the history of the Centre for Future Work, and Stanford’s philosophy of using popular economic knowledge to strengthen movements for social change and workers’ rights.

    We are pleased to reprint (download below), with kind permission from In the Black, this profile, titled The People’s Economist. Many thanks to the journal and to Ms. Leggatt for the generous article!


    Related documents



    Full article

    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

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