A job is one thing, a secure job is so much better

Dog eat dog says:

08:20am | 04/01/13

The only right a full timer has is they can screw the boss because unfair dismissal laws protect them.
The employer generally doesn’t have the time or money to dump the dud permanent without a fight and so often these workers will screw the casual worker over by giving them the worst parts of the job.

Borderer says:

08:58am | 04/01/13

I quit full time work for casual contracting, some how getting paid more for less work seemed appealing (60+ hour weeks when fulltime).
Sure there was underling concerns about regular income but seriously being working poor and working all the time was much worse.
I eventually found good full time work that rewards extra effort.

Full-timer says:

10:56am | 04/01/13

I did IT contracting for while because the hourly rates looked good on paper however contracting terms do not really work well with having a family - you only get paid for the hours you work so no annual leave nor carer’s leave (sick leave) etc. It;s tough particularly in winter when there is more sickness; a full-time job with good conditions is the way to go.

Sundress in Sydney says:

08:45am | 04/01/13

@actorel, I don’t agree with you about revealing wages.  I can see no good reason for this.  Either you are getting paid less than your colleague, and you get annoyed, or are getting paid more and they get annoyed.  Where I work we negotiate our own pays with our bosses.  Whatever skills I have are what I use to secure a pay rise.  Why should we all be paid the same? Why shouldn’t someone be rewarded for having bettered themselves, or simply for working in a more productive manner, be paid more than a clock watcher? And why should that same person have to worry about the envy and spite that always seems to come from the non-productive? It is these time wasters that snipe and carry on about equal pay without actually being willing to do equal work. I get paid well because I am worth it, but my weekly pay packet is my business.
As for industrial democracy, it is something that I personally have not seen to my advantage.  Now, I am not saying it does not happen, I am simply relating my experience.  I was a union member for quite a few years (mandatory). During this time I was forced to go on strike for a cause I did not believe in on several occasions.  The paltry pay rise received was completely wiped out by lost wages.  There was no blind ballot so essentially you towed the party line or be bullied by the other members. Our union did not discuss things with management, they simply withheld labour.  It was absolute blackmail.  To make it worse, the very organizers making us go on strike and lose pay were salaried so in fact were not losing a day’s pay.  Blah to that!

PsychoHyena says:

03:09pm | 04/01/13

@Sundress, I agree, we have collective bargaining where I work, all of us receive the same pay depending on what department we’re in. But in situations like yours, it is so easy if one person is getting less pay but doing more work than someone getting more pay but doing less work (everything else being equal of course) for the person getting less pay to become resentful.

derro from derroville says:

04:28pm | 04/01/13

Do you really believe women get 5000 less just because they’re women? I can’t believe anyone can believe that. If it were true, as an employer I would only hire women because they’re cheaper based on your logic….don’t trust everything you see and hear

Audra Blue says:

04:57pm | 04/01/13

Only in the public service are wages transparent (due to everyone knowing everyone else’s grade) and even then it causes friction.  I’ve never been comfortable with others knowing my wage so I never say anything.  I also don’t care how much someone else is getting paid.

I’ve never had a job where wage transparency is encouraged.  In fact, all of my previous employers have cautioned me not to say anything, especially if I’ve been the one getting more money than those around me.

What you are paid is only the business of your employer and yourself.

acotrel says:

08:48am | 04/01/13

I suggest the biggest negative influence, the one that sends many businesses offshore are our OHS laws.  Why would anyone do the job right first time when they can go offshore and exploit the ignorant ?

acotrel says:

08:44am | 04/01/13

‘If you want a better job then get the skills, experience and qualifications necessary to earn it’

If you are over 45 those things can act as a deterrent.  No manager will employ somebody who is obviously better than themself.

Fed Up says:

09:01am | 04/01/13

A trained monkey?
Really?
Doh….my self esteem just plumeted.
I need skills!
I need to dump my 2 jobs and my family and gets sum educations.
No frickin monkey is going to take my job :(

Tubesteak says:

11:06am | 04/01/13

acotrel
If you were better than them then you’d be doing their job. Something you’d been ruthlessly working towards your entire life

Fed Up
Now you’re on the right path. Good luck

BrianB says:

12:38pm | 04/01/13

“No manager will employ somebody who is obviously better than themself.” Rather odd statement Acotrel.

Most people don’t, and can’t be expected to possess all of the skills to run or oversee all sections of a business venture and need to employ specialists, or contract out to those who do eg accounting or IT.

over it says:

08:47am | 04/01/13

You know, it really annoys me that people are complaining about penalty rates. It wasn’t the employees who wanted to work in shops open all hours of the day; early mornings, late nights, all weekend.  Apparently YOU, the customers, wanted it, and the EMPLOYERS went on with it. Everyone is happy with the arrangement except when it comes to paying for it. The boss wants the income that comes from being open all hours, then they can schlepp their asses out of bed at 3.30 am and do the work themselves.

acotrel says:

08:56am | 04/01/13

Penalty rates really stick in your craw, don’t they? Are you suggesting we should remove them and pay all workers ‘piece rates’ ?
They should probably pay their own workers compensation, professional indemnity and unemployment insurance too, and provide transport for the use of the small business owner?  Essentially ‘on contract’, at normal ‘on contract’ rates of 2.5 times normal on staff salary ?
Have good ‘dry retch’, wretch !

Cam says:

09:04am | 04/01/13

Yes Bitten we worked public holidays ourselves at our small sport/leisure business so that those 9 to 5’ers could have something to do on their day off. And yes we ended up both doing a weekend shift because of a thieving employee who decided to give herself extra penalty rates. I’m sorry but standing at a counter taking money does not warrant $50 an hour. Customers wanted access to our facilities 7 days a week, 364 days a year so every day was the same to us.

OverIt says:

09:12am | 04/01/13

Please don’t confuse the postings I have recently been making on Punch with the poster below who is using a very similar name to mine.

AdamC says:

09:40am | 04/01/13

Penalty rates, like wage rates themselves, should be based on market prices. 

Casual loadings, however, should be imposed via Awards or other rules. This is because, for low-skilled and lower ability workers, loadings may get priced out of existence. However, it should always be more expensive for an employer to hire a casual employee than an equiavelent permanent one. This is to both to compensate employees for the explicit and implicit costs they bear from being employed casually and to encourage employers to hire permanent staff for ongoing roles.

Check your facts says:

12:30pm | 04/01/13

The casualisation of the workforce continued under Workchoices when there was no unfair dismissal law. Unfair dismissal laws are not driving casualisation of the workforce.
Casualisation of the workforce is about business transferring the risks and consequences of a downturn in their business onto workers (if demand drops you are out the door with no redundancy), at the same time diminishing workers bargaining power to get a share of increased profits and productivity.
Business owners have traditionally made more money than workers and have justified this because they risk their money to start and run the business. Markets are based on risk vs reward, if you invest in safe options (government bonds etc.) your return is lower, if you invest in risky options your potential reward is much higher (think internet start ups).
Casualisation is about business keeping the rewards but transferring the risks on to employees.
Business currently have 6 months to assess new workers without being subject to unfair dismissal, that is plenty of time to see if they are a fit for the business.

Sanity says:

12:52pm | 04/01/13

Actually, casual workers still have a number of the same rights in terms of unfair dismissal. They still can’t be dismissed for discriminatory reasons, nor can they be fired for standing up against a bully.

marley says:

12:58pm | 04/01/13

The problem is that business itself moves in cycles, and hiring permanent staff to meet short-term up-cycles is way too risky for most businesses, especially small ones.  Businesses need flexibility to survive.  If they can’t meet the bottom line, all the risk ends up being transferred to the workers, who all lose their jobs.

Big Jay says:

01:25pm | 04/01/13

@ Check your facts - “Casualisation of the workforce is about business transferring the risks and consequences of a downturn in their business onto workers” ... I sort of agree with this, to say that business wants “flexibility” to move up and down with demand. But fair enough, they pay a premium (casual loading and shift allowances etc) for this.

My main concern with all this is we get ourselves into a tailspin with economic downturn—-> leads to casualisation of workers/nervous consumers—-> less demand—-> less employment.

Unfair vs Unlawful says:

02:42pm | 04/01/13

@Sanity - the rights are much different, you are talking about unfair vs unlawful dismissal. Unfair dismissal is any dismissal that is harsh unfair or unjust. Unlawful dismissal is more or less confined dismissal on discriminatory grounds.
The big difference however comes when you try to enforce your rights - Unfair dismissal is heard by FWA at a cost of $26 application fee (can be waived for financial hardship), the applicant needs to show that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Unlawful dismissal cases are heard by the Federal Court, cost to both parties are considerable. The applicant needs to prove they were dismissed on discriminatory grounds. In most cases a casual wont be sacked in the first place they just wont get called to come in for another shift.

Looking for Permanent Work says:

02:48pm | 04/01/13

@Wayne Kerr, ” Otherwise they can be accused of giving jobs to their mates as opposed to trying to place the best candidate in the role.  Again, especialy in the public service, if they don’t do this someone who wants the role can file a grievance if the role isn’t advertised on the basis that they have been discriminated against.”.

I actually know somebody who did challenge an internal decision to give a job to somebody who did not meet all the selection criteria, whereas this person did.  They were fobbed off for two weeks, then told it was too late as the contract had already been signed so nothing could be done.  They were told they had to bring a lawyer to any further meeting, as the HR manager was “not a lawyer, so couldn’t make legal decisions”, then when after all this the person persisted, the HR manager reluctantly agreed to look into the process.  The process that HE HIMSELF had signed off on.  So in spite of all the theoretical fear of grievance lodging, it turns out they can actually do what they want anyway.

Looking for Permanent Work says:

08:57am | 04/01/13

I truly wish you luck encee, I’m in the same position but without a perm job to apply for.  Many times last year I put hours of effort into addressing all criteria for an advertised job, all of which I was very well qualified to do, to not even get an interview.  I suspect that in many cases the incumbent (in this case, you) gets the job and the company is just going through the motions of advertising.  I truly wish they would just give the job to the person they want, and not waste the time and hopes of every applicant who has applied in good faith. I even got a knockback just before Christmas from a job I was sure wouldn’t interview until the new year. When I called for feedback, I asked how many people were progressing to interview and was told “one”.  When I asked if that person was already acting in the role I was told that information was “Confidential!”.  Confidential obviously being a euphemism for “I don’t want to tell you anything that may make my organisation look bad and possibly lead you to sue”.  Ha! As if somebody without a permanent job (or even with one!) could afford to!

I’m also finding that after almost two years of casual work, prospective employers appear to view me as “flighty, uncommitted to long-term work.” and have been told this more than once based purely on my resume, even though my cover letter clearly states my desire to commit to a permanent job.  Never mind that I have managed, fortunately, to keep myself in close to full time casual work, albeit like you say, without benefits.

As a casual, you can never plan or take planned leisure time off.  When you have a job, you don’t want to take time off from available work, when you don’t you can’t afford to.

Like many of the posts here, I believe this situation has come about at least in part due to the excessive demands of the unions. Conversely, in the public service I once watched an employee arrive late, leave early, ALWAYS tack an extra day “sick” onto public holidays and fiddle their timesheets.  When I drew this to the attention of senior people I was told to back off in case this worker “lodged a grievance” against me! Of course nothing was done to change the worker’s behaviour!

What a shame that many of us who would give employers no cause to have to sack us are now in this position.

acotrel says:

09:00am | 04/01/13

Bob Menzies once said ‘Australia will never be any good until we have unemployment’.

Carl says:

10:01am | 04/01/13

“I’m also finding that after almost two years of casual work, prospective employers appear to view me as “flighty, uncommitted to long-term work.”

I am currently recruiting and the chairperson of the selection panel has this exact view. I try to remind her that several casual jobs doesn’t mean anything and that perhaps the person is having trouble getting something full time - not from lack of skill/experience but from lack of opportunity and availability. Unfortunately not everyone thinks the same way I do.

AdamC says:

11:00am | 04/01/13

encee says:

“I’m told I should be getting a higher hourly rate than my permanent colleagues.”

I am not an industrial relations lawyer or consultant. However, I did do some research about this recently and, based on my understanding, employers have to pay a casual loading, as all Modern Awards include these loadings. Individual contracts cannot reduce or eliminate Award entitlements. Collective agreements, negotiated with a registered union, can, but I find it hard to believe that any union would sign off on eliminating casual loadings. 

Maybe your permanent colleagues work under agreements which offer better than Award rates, while casuals are only paid the minimum. I have heard about that happening in some workplaces, as the employer tries to keep permanent staff happy while seeing contractors, casuals etc as more expendable. (Sorry if that sounds like a glib choice of words.)

I wish you the best of luck with your application, and with hopefully finding a permanent gig. I also echo Looking’s comment that it is really annoying to apply for a job that is only being advertised to ‘go through the motions’. Why do organisations do that?

Wayne Kerr says:

11:58am | 04/01/13

@LFPW
“I truly wish they would just give the job to the person they want, and not waste the time and hopes of every applicant who has applied in good faith”

The problem there is that the employer, especially in the public service, has to at the very least give the appearance of impartiality.  Otherwise they can be accused of giving jobs to their mates as opposed to trying to place the best candidate in the role.  Again, especialy in the public service, if they don’t do this someone who wants the role can file a grievance if the role isn’t advertised on the basis that they have been discriminated against.  This also applies to in the private sector to a certain degree.

Looking for Permanent Work says:

04:10pm | 04/01/13

@Carl. “I am currently recruiting and the chairperson of the selection panel has this exact view. I try to remind her that several casual jobs doesn’t mean anything and that perhaps the person is having trouble getting something full time - not from lack of skill/experience but from lack of opportunity and availability. Unfortunately not everyone thinks the same way I do. “

Maybe your chairman is somebody I have actually applied to and been rejected from due to “length of tenure”, ha ha.

Thanks for your support in showing her the other side, perhaps you could also make the point that for somebody to have been in almost continuous casual employment demonstrates strong flexibility, an ability to adapt to many different environments, the ability to form good working relationships (try going into a new place at the drop of a hat to take over someone’s job with no handover and NOT being able to form good working relationships quickly with those around you!) and self-motivation to go out seeking the next job as one is drawing to an end, while still remaining loyal to that current employer.

Thanks again, you sound like a nice boss and I for one wouldn’t be taking advantage of that!

NotSoSimple says:

10:23am | 04/01/13

Just a minor point but you’re wrong about pubs shutting at 6pm in the 70s in Australia, Adam C. South Aus was the last state to introduce ten o’clock closing in 1967 but most of the other states had already extended trading hours before before then viz:

“Closing time was extended to 10 p.m. in Tasmania from 1937. The issue of ending early closing was voted on in New South Wales in 1947, but the proposal was voted down, but a vote in 1954 narrowly won, and closing hours were extended to 10 p.m. in 1955. Hours were extended in Victoria in 1966, and South Australia was the last state to abolish six o’clock closing with legislation introduced by Don Dunstan in 1967 and the first legal after-six beer being drunk on 28 September.”

So perhaps your “unidealised” vision of the past, ie that Union won work pay and conditions weren’t better then is incorrect as well?

sunny says:

10:41am | 04/01/13

AdamC - “How many of us would want to go back to union Utopia”

Most workers don’t know their full rights - they’re just not educated or outspoken enough. Unions are required in a lot of employment situations to prevent exploitation.

I haven’t been an employee for 10 years and haven’t been in a union for about 20 years, but I only remember excellent things about my union rep when I worked in a supermarket over 20 years ago. She really knew her stuff (in terms of legal rights and rewards). It was not an adversarial situation - the employer respected her position because she was just representing the written legal position, the employees consulted her because they themselves just didn’t know the law. She was like a go-between and a peace keeper - if she didn’t stand up for the workers’ right then nobody would have.

For the record I’m against unions who try to have an influence on the strategic or operational decisions of a company, and I’m against union bosses who collect huge wages for doing fuck-all but screwing the people they represent.

Sundress in Sydney says:

10:32am | 04/01/13

What an arrogant post.  Not all people are equal, and not all have the same ability.  Some do not exell at academia or have the acumen to run a business.  So does that mean they should be discounted?  Where I work we have some exceptional machinists, welders etc.  These people are very good tradespeople and we pay them well.  However the market is not there for them to work as independant contractors.  And also whilst some produce extraordinary work, they would not be comfortable running a business, nor have the skill set.  Having said that, our management do not have the skills to produce what the tradespeople do.  And for the record, they did work hard.  They did their four years apprenticeship and then further schooling as new equipment and information comes forth.  Most of them do ongoing schooling for precisely that reason.  In the same vein, a garbage collector may not have the skills to start their own business but still do a very important job.  Should they then be treated with the same arrogant contempt you display?  The lofty heights must be wonderful.

Sanity says:

12:56pm | 04/01/13

What about those people who DO try hard and still can’t get a job? A friend of mine received an ATAR score in the high 90’s (in 2007). It took him 2 years to find some casual work while he was studying. Nobody wanted him because he was too old (he was almost 20). In my case, I also studied hard. I am now completing a Masters in Teaching. I still cannot find any work however, because of the lovely little rule that states that while age discrimination is illegal, you can still hire someone under the age of 21 and pay them $8 per hour.

marley says:

02:51pm | 04/01/13

@Sanity - so, are you saying that if the minimum wage for everyone was $8 an hour, you could get a job, but because it’s $15 for you, you can’t?  Does that tell you something about the value of the union push for a $15 minimum wage? That people who do get jobs get a better pay, but that fewer people get jobs?  That’s the trade off when you have a minimum wage set as high as the one in Australia.

expat says:

03:02pm | 04/01/13

Sundress in Sydney.

I agree that not everyone is equal, what annoys me is that these low achievers have an attitude that they are entitled to be equal to high achievers, unions exist to achieve this “equality” which is in reality just screwing the high achievers.

OverIt says:

03:09pm | 04/01/13

@Mel, you are showing your ignorance, and quite frankly being offensive.  There are many qualified, hardworking people who cannot find permanent employment or who take employment far below their capsbilities just to make ends meet.  I’m one of them.

marley says:

12:21pm | 04/01/13

@Achmed - the problem is that those radical unions have an undue influence on the political situation in this country.  They’re elected to represent the union members, not to decide government policy.

acotrel says:

04:27pm | 04/01/13

Mar ley
’ the problem is that those radical unions have an undue influence on the political situation in this country.  They’re elected to represent the union members, not to decide government policy. ‘

Does that statement apply equally to the employers’ unions ? How much influence do you believe trade unions should be permitted to actually have in our political system. Where would you find Der eader to make the decision ? Tony Hairybot ?

Achmed says:

11:16am | 04/01/13

and like there aren’t ROTTEN employers?  Look at the companies that go “broke” yet the owners/CEO etc still have their multi-million dollar homes and lifestyle while the employees and shareholders loose out.

Alan Bond, Christopher Skase etc…....