My Blog

Tag: Lily Raynes

  • Theft By Any Other Name: Go Home On Time Day 2022

    Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Theft By Any Other Name: Go Home On Time Day 2022

    Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime
    by Eliza Littleton and Lily Raynes

    Authors

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Media release



    Australians Working 6 Weeks Unpaid Overtime, Costing Economy Over $92 Billion: Go Home on Time Day Report

    This year marks the fourteenth 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.

    Last year’s report focused on working conditions during the pandemic. Since the re-opening of the global economy after pandemic era lockdowns, Australia’s economy and labour market face both new and old challenges. While the unemployment rate is at historic lows, inflation has accelerated, interest rates are rising, and real wages continue to decline. The tighter labour market conditions, combined with strong productivity growth should theoretically place workers in a position to shop around for well-paid secure work. Accordingly, we should be witnessing improvements in working conditions and wages at least keeping up with prices. But this is not what we observe, this myth that a tight labour market will automatically empower workers hides the many diverse realities of working lives in Australia.

    While the labour force participation rate is high, we continue to see growth in non-standard low security employment like labour hire, casual, rolling fixed term, and gig work. While the ‘strong’ labour market conditions may benefit some workers, they are not improving conditions for all, particularly persistently disadvantaged workers like young people, women, first nations workers, and people with disability. Meanwhile, financial dependency on employment remains high as disruptions to global and domestic supply chains cause price hikes for critical products and real wages continue to fall behind, undermining the purchasing power of Australians. This year’s GHOTD focuses on issues Australian workers are experiencing in this economic context.



    Full report

    Share

  • Call Me Maybe (Not)

    Future of Work, Labour Standards & Workers’ Rights

    Call Me Maybe (Not)

    Working Overtime and A Right To Disconnect in Australia
    by Eliza Littleton and Lily Raynes

    Authors

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Media release



    Australians Working 6 Weeks Unpaid Overtime, Costing Economy Over $92 Billion: Go Home on Time Day Report

    Working beyond scheduled hours has long been a problem for Australian workers. The nature and scale of overtime has more recently been shaped by the rise in flexible working arrangements and the integration of information and communication technology at work. Checking emails on the weekend, taking multiple-time-zone calls out of hours, and teleconferencing from the dining table have all become familiar experiences amongst workers. This both enabled working from home conditions during the pandemic for a large portion of workers, and accelerated patterns of overtime through the blurring of lines between work and home life.

    The survey results presented in this report show that overtime is a prevalent and systemic issue in Australia, primarily driven by working conditions within the control of employers.

    • Seven in ten (71%) workers reported having performed work outside of scheduled working hours. While only 29% of workers indicated that they have not done overtime.
    • Of those who completed overtime, the largest share performed overtime often, as opposed to sometimes, rarely, or never.
      • Almost half (44%) reported often performing overtime to meet employer expectations, and another 31% performed overtime sometimes.
      • Overtime was fairly evenly spread across industries and occupations, suggesting it is not an isolated issue that can be resolved with a targeted solution.
    • The incidence and frequency of overtime are more common among men, young people, those with full-time jobs, and those in goods producing sectors or working as managers.
    • The most common reasons workers perform overtime were having too much work (36%), followed by staff shortages (28%), less interruptions working outside normal hours (26%), and managers’ or supervisors’ expectations (23%).
    • Over a third of workers (38%) reported that overtime was an expectation in their workplaces.

    Overtime doesn’t come without cost: it has significant consequences for workers, their families, and for society more broadly.

    • The most commonly experienced negative consequences of overtime work were physical tiredness (35%), followed by stress and anxiety (32%), and being mentally drained (31%), each affecting around a third of workers.
    • Over a quarter of workers reported that overtime interfered with their personal life and relationships (27%), and 17% responded that it led to disrupted or unfulfilling non-work time.
    • One in five workers identified that working outside scheduled hours negatively affected their relationship with work; 22% reported reduced motivation to work, and 19% experienced poor job satisfaction.

    Australia has enterprise agreements, modern awards, and national employment standards that are intended to set out limitations on working times. However, the prevalence of overtime suggests that Australia’s industrial relations systems are not properly protecting the boundaries between work and non-work time for many workers. In particular, existing laws have done little to prevent the creep of work into private time, aided by technology. This is why workers, employers, unions, and governments around the world have been looking at how to implement a ‘right to disconnect’.

    Our survey found considerable support amongst Australia workers for a right to disconnect.

    • Six in seven (84%) workers expressed support for the Federal Government to nationally legislate a right to disconnect that directs employers to avoid contacting workers outside of work hours, unless in an emergency.
      • Only 8% opposed the idea of a right to disconnect.

    A right to disconnect could take several forms, and be implemented via different avenues in Australia. Based on international examples and the attitudes of workers in Australia, this report finds that implementing the right within the national employment standards would be the most effective.

    • Four in five (80%) workers thought that a right to disconnect would be effective if legislated in national employment standards, making it the avenue viewed as effective by the most workers.

    This report provides strong evidence for the government to pursue a right to disconnect as a way of limiting the creep of work into non-work time.



    Full report

    Share

  • Going Nuclear: The Costs of Mid-Bargaining Termination of Enterprise Agreements

    Unions & Collective Bargaining

    Going Nuclear: The Costs of Mid-Bargaining Termination of Enterprise Agreements

    by Lily Raynes and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Jim Stanford

    Media releases



    Deal on IR Reforms Sets Stage for Faster Wage Growth



    IR Reforms To Close Off The ‘Nuclear Option’ Will Protect Wages and Entitlements

    New research from the Centre for Future Work quantifies the dramatic risks faced by workers whose employers unilaterally terminate enterprise agreements during the course of renegotiations. This aggressive employer strategy, which became common after a precedent-setting 2015 court decision, would be curtailed by new industrial relations legislation proposed by the Commonwealth government.

    The paper reviews one dramatic example of this termination threat – dubbed the ‘nuclear option’ by labour law experts (because it ‘blows up’ years of collective bargaining embodied in existing enterprise agreements). Earlier this year, Qantas threatened termination of the EA covering its international cabin crew unless they accepted significant contract concessions.

    The new report confirms that losses from termination, if it had gone ahead, would have been enormous for the affected workers:

    • Hourly wage cuts between 25% and 70%.
    • Annual income losses up to $67,000 for the most senior staff.
    • Loss of superannuation contributions and investment income, totalling as much as $130,000 and dramatically reducing retirement incomes.
    • Painful retrenchment of many working conditions issues (including rest periods and accommodation).
    • From the company’s perspective, termination of the EA for just this group of its staff would save $63 million per year, and up to $1 billion over 15 years.

    This threat, backed up by an application for termination lodged with the Fair Work Commission, was sufficient to convince cabin crew staff to accept a new EA containing a two-year wage freeze, real wage cuts, and other compensation and conditions reductions. Staff had earlier voted 97% to reject that agreement. This reversal confirms the termination threat is a very powerful bargaining lever for employers.

    The report recommends reforms to the Fair Work Act to limit employers’ ability to apply for unilateral termination during renegotiations. Current legislation in Parliament (the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill) would put new restrictions on employers’ ability to terminate EAs during renegotiation.



    Full report

    Share

  • Collective Bargaining and Wage Growth in Australia

    Unions & Collective Bargaining

    Collective Bargaining and Wage Growth in Australia

    by Jim Stanford, Fiona Macdonald and Lily Raynes

    Authors

    Jim Stanford

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Media releases



    Deal on IR Reforms Sets Stage for Faster Wage Growth



    Restoring Collective Bargaining Coverage Would Boost Wage Growth: Research Report

    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

  • IR Reforms To Close Off The ‘Nuclear Option’ Will Protect Wages and Entitlements

    IR Reforms To Close Off The ‘Nuclear Option’ Will Protect Wages and Entitlements

    by Lily Raynes

    Share

    New research from the Centre for Future Work quantifies the dramatic risks faced by workers whose employers unilaterally terminate enterprise agreements during the course of renegotiations. This aggressive employer strategy, which became common after a precedent-setting 2015 court decision, would be curtailed by new industrial relations legislation proposed by the Commonwealth Government.

    The paper reviews one dramatic example of this termination threat – dubbed the ‘nuclear option’ by labour law experts (because it ‘blows up’ years of collective bargaining embodied in existing enterprise agreements). Earlier this year, Qantas threatened termination of the EA covering its international cabin crew unless they accepted significant contract concessions.

    The new report confirms that losses from termination, if it had gone ahead, would have been enormous for the affected workers:

    • Hourly wage cuts between 25% and 70%
    • Annual income losses up to $67,000 for the most senior staff
    • Loss of superannuation contributions and investment income, totalling as much as $130,000 and dramatically reducing retirement incomes
    • Painful retrenchment of many working conditions issues (including rest periods and accommodation)

    From the company’s perspective, termination of the EA for just this group of its staff would save $63 million per year, and up to $1 billion over 15 years.

    This threat, backed up by an application for termination lodged with the Fair Work Commission, was sufficient to convince cabin crew staff to accept a new EA containing a two-year wage freeze, real wage cuts, and other compensation and conditions reductions. Staff had earlier voted 97% to reject that agreement. This reversal confirms the termination threat is a very powerful bargaining lever for employers.

    “The scale of the losses experienced by Qantas staff as a result of termination would have been catastrophic,” said Lily Raynes of the Centre for Future Work, co-author of the report.

    “It would undermine their quality of life for the rest of their careers, and indeed right through their retirement,” Ms Raynes said.

    “The ability to credibly threaten termination, even as workers are trying to negotiate a replacement EA, provides a powerful advantage to employers,” said Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work and the other co-author. 

    “It shifts the playing field decisively in employers’ favour and has been a major factor in the rapid erosion of collective agreement coverage over the past decade,” Dr Stanford said.

    “Qantas ruthlessly took advantage of this loophole in labour law to threaten cabin crew staff and impose terms and conditions that are blatantly unfair, given this company’s power and profits,” said Teri O’Toole, Federal Secretary of the Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia (one of the unions representing cabin crew at the airline). 

    “Qantas, and other greedy companies, will keep doing this unless the legislation is changed,” Ms O’Toole said.

    The report recommends reforms to the Fair Work Act to limit employers’ ability to apply for unilateral termination during renegotiations. Current legislation in Parliament (the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill) would put new restrictions on employers’ ability to terminate EAs during renegotiation.


    Related research



    Going Nuclear: The Costs of Mid-Bargaining Termination of Enterprise Agreements



    Full report

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

    Tax, Spending & the Budget

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

    by Greg Jericho, Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, Lily Raynes and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Jim Stanford

    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

  • Robbed at Sea

    Industry & Sector Policies, Wages & Entitlements

    Robbed at Sea

    Endemic Wage Theft from Seafarers in Australian Waters
    by Rod Pickette, Lily Raynes and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Rod Pickette

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Jim Stanford

    Media release



    International Seafarers Suffer $65 Million in Wage Theft Annually in Australian Waters

    Seafarers perform difficult, often dangerous work that is essential to the operation of global supply chains, delivering all the merchandise we take for granted in modern life. Yet because of the legal vacuum governing international marine traffic, a lack of resources and attention for enforcement by national regulators, and the corporate strategies of shipping companies and their customers, seafarers are subject to some of the worst exploitation and abuse of any occupation in the world economy.

    As a developed, high-income economy that participates heavily in international freight trade, Australia has a special responsibility to protect and lift labour standards in this vital industry. Australia’s current approach is sadly inadequate in that regard. Our laws tolerate the blatant use of legal loopholes to evade the application of domestic standards, and our regulatory agencies have not made adequate commitments to oversee, inspection, enforcement, and remediation.

    The policy recommendations made in this report would constitute initial and long overdue steps in addressing both the economic and the moral dimensions of wage theft and other forms of exploitation in freight shipping.



    Full report

    Share

  • Wages, Prices and the Federal Election

    Wages & Entitlements

    Wages, Prices and the Federal Election

    by Lily Raynes

    Author

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Media release



    Exit Poll: Overwhelming Majority of Australians Want Wage Growth in Line with Cost of Living

    The recent federal election featured important debate regarding the rising cost of living in Australia, and whether and how wages should be boosted to keep up with higher prices. One exchange, late in the campaign, occurred when ALP leader Anthony Albanese stated his belief that wages should keep up with prices — but then was strongly criticised for that view by Coalition leaders and some business commentators.

    New exit poll results from the Australia Institute indicate that a very strong majority of voters (83%) in fact support the idea that wages should at least keep up with prices. This opinion was shared broadly across the political spectrum. Even 79% of Coalition voters supported lifting wages to at least keep up with inflation.

    It seems likely, therefore, that this debate over wages and prices worked to the advantage of Mr Albanese. The exit poll indicated that voters identified the ALP, by a large margin, as having enunciated the best position on the problems of wages and the rising cost of living. 39% of voters (including 11% of Coalition voters) indicated the ALP had the strongest position on this issue, compared to 26% who thought the Coalition had the best policy.



    Full report

    Share

  • Budget Analysis 2022-23

    Tax, Spending & the Budget

    Budget Analysis 2022-23

    A Budget to Get to the May Election – But No Further
    by Greg Jericho, Mark Dean, Eliza Littleton, Fiona Macdonald, Dan Nahum, Alison Pennington, Lily Raynes and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Mark Dean

    Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    Eliza Littleton

    Senior Economist

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Lily Raynes

    Anne Kantor Fellow

    Jim Stanford

    The Commonwealth Government has tabled its budget for the 2022-23 financial year. As the nation emerges from two years of lockdowns and border closures, with less than two months until a federal election, this budget is focused on getting the government re-elected – rather than addressing the challenges of public health, stagnant wages, and sustainability facing Australia.

    This failure is all the more regrettable given the enormous discretionary fiscal resources which the government has at its disposal: the budget projects $133 billion in extra tax revenues over the next five years, compared to its MYEFO projections just three months ago, thanks to strong economic growth and rising nominal GDP. But instead of ploughing those revenues into reforming human services (like health, aged care, early child education, or disability services), undertaking a genuine policy to revitalise domestic manufacturing, or accelerating the energy transition, the government has prioritised one-time cash handouts to entice voters in the upcoming election.

    In this comprehensive budget overview, the Centre for Future Work’s team of economists unpacks the budget, considers its effects, and suggests alternatives.

    Our report reviews all aspects of the budget’s impacts on work and workers, including: wages, employment forecasts, vocational education and higher education, women workers and caring labour, labour standards enforcement, and manufacturing and energy jobs.

    Please also check out these rapid-response budget commentaries from two of our economists:

    “Six graphs that reveal the sugar-hit election strategy,” by Policy Director Greg Jericho in the Guardian Australia.

    “Budget billions wasted as real wages go backwards,” by Senior Economist Alison Pennington in The New Daily.



    Full report

    Share