Is your job less secure than the one you had five or 10 years ago? Are you a casual worker, or on a fixed-term contract or getting temporary work through a labour hire company? But, at the same time, are you working harder and longer hours than you were?

Cartoon: Peter Nicholson

If so, it’s not just you, it’s the Australian workforce as a whole.

Today, the reality is that 40 per cent of Australians are in some kind of insecure work. That’s the combination of people who are casual (which is a quarter of the workforce alone), on contracts, and in labour hire, as opposed to the normal definition of standard, permanent jobs.

This is at a time when the number of hours Australians are working is higher than ever, with more and more people juggling two jobs.

As well as the lack of security two million of these workers have no paid sick leave, no annual or long service leave and no right to ongoing work.

This massive change in the culture of the Australian workplace has taken place in the space of a generation with little examination of its effects on families and communities. It has been driven by businesses that want the freedom to hire and fire and shift the risk of their business onto employees.

While I recognise that it is appropriate for some jobs and for some people, I do not believe that the growth in insecure work has come about because the people of Australia demanded it.

Today (Monday Feb 13th) a national inquiry into insecure work begins its hearings in Brisbane.  Chaired by former Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe, the inquiry will conduct 25 days of hearings at 23 different cities and towns. It will visit every state and territory, and will conduct hearings at places as far flung as Karratha, in the Pilbara.

The ACTU commissioned this inquiry because everywhere we go, workers tell us that they are concerned about the growth of insecure work, its encroachment into workplaces where secure jobs were once the norm, and its impact on workers’ lives, their families, and their communities.

This inquiry is a mammoth undertaking by the ACTU, and a demonstration of how serious we are about investigating the impact of and solutions to insecure work.

We want this to be a debate based on facts, and the voices of the Australian people.

The inquiry has already received over 500 submissions, including over 450 from individuals.

I believe that insecure work delivers benefits for employers, but has negative consequences for workers and communities that simply do not get included in an economic rationalist view of the world.

I do not believe we have fully calculated the costs of having so many people’s working lives surrounded by uncertainty.

As concerns grow about an economic slowdown caused by factors in the northern hemisphere, and local manufacturers like Alcoa or the car companies buckle under siege from a high Aussie dollar, the importance of secure, reliable jobs is only going to become more important. We need to protect the secure jobs of today, but just as importantly, we need to ensure that when secure jobs are lost, those workers are not left in a situation of no choice but to accept low-paying, insecure work for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that this is too often the end result for workers who are the victims of structural changes to our economy.

British academic Guy Standing has dubbed this class of low-paid and insecure workers as the “Precariat” – a group of people that is growing in developed countries.

These are workers who bounce between a series of temporary jobs, just able to pay this month’s bills, but unable to save, afford a house or build a career. They do okay in good economic times but work dries up in bad.

Anybody in the precariat will struggle to pay bills, to improve their circumstances or take out a loan or mortgage. They get trapped in a cycle of debt and short-term jobs instead of a career.

People in insecure work find it hard to plan for the future and to manage their finances. How can you take out a mortgage if you don’t know if you will have a job in six months’ time, or how many hours you’ll work this week?

How can you plan to raise a family or develop a career if your job is a series of short-term contracts?

How can you spend time with your family or with a sick child if you have no choice to accept a shift at short notice, or not be offered one again?

Insecure workers have little if any bargaining power over pay and conditions, they have fewer opportunities for skill and career development, and they are more prone to workplace accidents.

Sure, they have the freedom to take their labour elsewhere, but if the only alternatives are similar jobs on similar pay this is a hollow freedom.

As often happens in these debates we hear the cry that increasing “flexibility” is necessary for improving productivity, economic growth and for keeping unemployment low.

Insecure work is a short-term fix at best and does not improve productivity in the long run.

In the long-term productivity is about investment: both in people through education and training and in equipment and infrastructure that makes workers able to produce more.

The “flexibility” business groups talk about is code for lack of control over when you work, longer working hours, short-cuts on safety, and worse results for customers.

I believe that overuse of casual or contract work can damage a company because it creates a workforce that has no long-term loyalty to the organisation and does not feel a stake in its success.

The idea that the choice is between a casual job and no job is often a furphy. Companies like Woolworths will employ people in Australia, the question is what pay and conditions will they pay them? We will always have nurses and teachers, the question is what level of respect and security do we want to give those professions?

Insecure work is shifting into jobs that once seen as permanent. Thousands of young teachers across Australia are beginning the school year on one-year contracts.

Christine, a single TAFE teacher from New South Wales in her 50s, said in her submission to the inquiry that: “I daren’t take out a loan because I dread not being to repay it. The precarious nature of my employment means I cannot plan for the future. I dread the nine-week summer break from employment at TAFE because I have no income from TAFE over that period and no guarantee of a contract.”

Dreading being on holiday? That’s a sign that the modern workplace is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Work cannot be separated from the rest of life.

In the long-term we can not have insecure jobs, and secure lives. It is time that someone looked into the true cost of insecure work, and what we can do to limit it.

109 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:12am | 13/02/12

      As far as the money is concerned, being ‘on contract’ can be a good thing. However if you really want to achieve anything, it is exceptionally bad.  When you enter a workplace and find the whole shebang tied up to the old ‘ad hoc’ management culture. it is difficult to resist trying to introduce a bit of system. When you do that, it tends to show up the inadequacies of other people, and make so yourself into a target.  The next time you take any holidays, you will be out the door ! What I am talking about is industrial democracy - it is an essential component for competitive success and individual contracts destroy it.  It would not be so bad if the staff suggestion schemes actually worked but they are usually only window dressing.  Most Australian companies have never heard of ‘continual improvement’ ! The system runs on bullshit !

    • Mayday says:

      08:32am | 13/02/12

      The elephant in the room is UNFAIR DISMISSAL and that is the reason business will not hire permanent full time staff anymore.

      Acotrel your comments are so typical of the Left “tied up to the old ‘ad hoc’ management culture. it is difficult to resist trying to introduce a bit of system”

      The old us and them and we know what is best…....a bit like Ged and the Unions in general.

    • Bomb78 says:

      09:54am | 13/02/12

      Mayday: sshhh, Ged will hear you and send the goons.
      But you are right. Restore some balance to dismissal laws, and business will be inclined to hire more full time staff. Ged and her crew will never figure this one out though, they aren’t resposnible to shareholders for running profitable businesses, and they wouldn’t know how to anyway.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:33am | 13/02/12

      Bull shit Mayday, Unfair Dismissal - is just that “unfair dismissal” don’t use it as a defence of the Howard policy of Individual contracts. It was essentially the Howard Government that destroyed a fair work place.
      My daughter applied to teach and was offered a contract as follows; “Here is a contract take it or leave it - negotiation? Ya gotta be kidding!” My wife had a contract sign with Education Queensland. When numbers dropped at the school: “Sorry contract gone!” No compensation, no discussion just “You don’t got no job lady!”
      My son worked for Patriks - Peter Reith arranged for Aussie Defence Personel to be trained in Dubai - “Sorry kid we are reforming the waterfront you’re sacked.” Duh on how’s economic watch was that one?
      Thank you John Howard
      Germany Japan and China do so well simply because management and workers have a mutually respectful arrangements - management protects workers and workers work hard and the outcome and output is top quality recognised though out the world.
      Only when capital recognises that labour is people not a ‘factor of production’ will Australian work place relations improve. Production, productivity and quality is achieved only by a cooperative effort by people - people who manage, people who invest and people who work and the flatter the pyramid the better the outcome.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:37am | 13/02/12

      @ Dieter Mockel: “Production, productivity and quality is achieved only by a cooperative effort by people - people who manage, people who invest and people who work and the flatter the pyramid the better the outcome.”

      Your problem there is incentives.  The people who invest have an incentive for their business doing well.  The people who manage and who work (there’s no functional difference) do not.  Their right to the same wage, week in, week out, no matter how bad the business is doing, does not compel them to work any harder or identify any problems in the business that need fixing and thus to make it run better.  Small business owners in particular have no choice but to go hungry or forego all their profits in order that they pay out the weekly tariff for employing someone to do a job.  Minimum wage and awards contribute to this moral hazard.

      Unions in Germany, I found, are almost the complete opposite of how they work here: there’s no place for a small, militant union there and in many cases union members are on the boards of the companies.  Insofar as a union is acceptable, that is an excellent arrangement, since the union officials on those boards are legally responsible for the progress or destruction of the company and will work damn hard to make sure their members don’t kill the golden goose.

    • Tator says:

      03:34pm | 13/02/12

      Dieter,
      teaching contracts have been always been a state based industrial issue.  Nothing to do with Workchoices as most states apart from Victoria retained their own industrial relation laws with regards to public service employment.  This was because Workchoices only effected people employed by companies which come under the amit of the Federal Corporate laws as it used the Corporations clause of the Constitution to override state legislation.
        Teachers for decades have had to brave the contract teaching scheme prior to obtaining a tenured spot so it is not a Coalition policy which causes the contract merrygoround.

    • Nick w says:

      05:14am | 13/02/12

      I’m tired of it.my first job was my most secure and highest paying.I’m now casually employed, have had promiseafter unfulfilled promise of full time work and am now receiving less hours than ever, because new zealand and india are cheaper.I’m just glad I applied for and for into uni..i hope things will be better in 4 years.

    • Macca says:

      06:50am | 13/02/12

      Plenty of contract to perm opportunities for graduates who perform. For those who don’t, the contract usually ends

    • Macca says:

      07:04am | 13/02/12

      I’ll rephrase; you’ll do very well to find permanent work as a graduate in the coming few years given the current economic outlook.

    • L. says:

      07:22am | 13/02/12

      “I’m just glad I applied for and for into uni..i hope things will be better in 4 years. “

      At least you have identified an educational short comming and you’re addressing it. Well done.

    • Nick W says:

      01:22pm | 13/02/12

      I should be clear - I already hold a certificate 4 and post graduate diploma.  It’s not enough, lest I move to the country, which is fine and I do love rural and regional Australia… but I don’t believe my preferred industry (media) will survive in its current format.  So, I’ve chosen to be an educated innovator, rather than a relic that screams about job security and wants unions and the government to assist my archaic industry and its obsolete jobs.

    • Against the Man says:

      05:22am | 13/02/12

      Thank the ALP you and your supporters for the time more people will be spending unemployment…....and that nasty job killing carbon tax that Julia sold us out for wink

    • gene says:

      06:23am | 13/02/12

      @a.t.m. Look I really have to agree with you there. i am working casual hours with about 80 people at our plant and our manager has already said all bets are off for casual staff after the carbon tax comes. They say the carbon tax costs might mean its cheaper to move our work overseas or close down parts of the company. I am truly and genuinely petrified of whats ahead for me and my family and others when this horrid carbon tax arrives. :-(

    • acotrel says:

      06:34am | 13/02/12

      @gene
      ’ I am truly and genuinely petrified of whats ahead for me and my family and others when this horrid carbon tax arrives.’

      It hasn’t happened yet, and it could be used as an excuse for businesses doing something which is highly unpopular.  Abbott is irresponsible in his scaremongering. He will never admit that the impact will be relatively insignificant in most industries, and a fraction of the daily variation in the price of the Australian dollar.

    • year of the dragon says:

      06:51am | 13/02/12

      acotrel says: 07:34am | 13/02/12

      “It hasn’t happened yet, and it could be used as an excuse for businesses doing something which is highly unpopular. “

      It’s four months away. You bang on and on and on and on about how businesses in Australian are badly managed and then ridicule anyone who suggests that they might be planning as little as four months away.

    • nihonin says:

      07:06am | 13/02/12

      acotrel states: ‘It hasn’t happened yet, and it could be used as an excuse for businesses doing something which is highly unpopular’. 

      How come said businesses, didn’t feel the need to ‘do something highly unpopular’ previously, acotrel?

    • acotrel says:

      07:33am | 13/02/12

      @nihonin
      Heinz @ Girgarre would have done better to wait and blame the carbon tax. for moving offshore.

    • nihonin says:

      07:56am | 13/02/12

      acotrel says:

        08:33am | 13/02/12

        @nihonin
        Heinz @ Girgarre would have done better to wait and blame the carbon tax. for moving offshore.

      So you’re saying they should have stayed and then given you, the government and all the other sycophants a chance to rubbish them and blame Tony Abbott somehow.  As terrible as it was Heinz moving off shore, you’d have loved to have a chance to mouth off, now you’re being petulant as you’ve been denied the opportunity.

    • Tom says:

      09:55am | 13/02/12

      ATM,
      before laying off staff, business owners should wait like sitting ducks and allow their businesses to be bankrupted by the carbon tax. That would be the decent thing to do.

    • I, Claudia says:

      10:37am | 13/02/12

      nihonin - businesses didn’t suddenly announce that they’d be partaking of massive staff cuts prior to the passing of the carbon tax because they had no justifiable excuse to. However, if it hadn’t been for the carbon tax, they’d be conjuring up some other way to cut costs.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      10:38am | 13/02/12

      @Tom

      Or they could be bankrupted by bad management.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:46am | 13/02/12

      I would just like to say that it is my opinion that if you speak of the Devil—-
      There is a terrible obscure and antidevelopment saying in Australia especially in Queensland “If it ain’t broke leave it alone.” That’s how Joh managed to fox Queenslanders into going backwards - if he hadn’t lost the job we’d nope be approaching the neolithic.
      The Bruce Highway wasn’t broke so it remained a single lane goat-track;  the rail system wasn’t broke but only the miners used it at taxpayers expense.
      Joh didn’t fix the non-broke roads because he had a plane and a pilot, and by the way its wasn’t an un-broke Sopwith Camel.
      Today he would be saying the same thing about inter alia dirty coal fired power stations, Mt Isa Mines’ lead emissions, changes to unleaded fuel.
      My great grandfather stood on the railway tracks to tilt against the iron horse with his pitch fork. After hurting his thumb he refused amputation because If God had wanted him to have only one thumb he would not have been born with two. Six weeks later gangrene opened the Pearly Gates for him.
      There is only pine way and that is forward - not back to the future ...

    • Macca says:

      05:32am | 13/02/12

      The rise in non-secure work (a stupid term in the first place, the security of your employment is dependent on thr performance of the company, and that of you as an individual, not your employment contract) is almost certainly rated to the tightening of Unfair Dismissal laws and the uncertainty in the economy.

      Ensuring a greater number of people remain employed during a period of economic uncertainty, something a lot of Australian firms attempted during 2008 and 2009, is far more beneficial to those individuals, the overall economy and those companies than Ged’s mandate for permanent full-time work.

    • acotrel says:

      06:06am | 13/02/12

      @Macca
      ’ the security of your employment is dependent on thr performance of the company’

      What comes first ? A business in which employees are creative and share a common goal with the business owner, or a business which is successful and can coerce it’s employees to perform better ? Authoritarianism stifles creativity.

    • marley says:

      06:29am | 13/02/12

      @acotrel - what comes first? a company that makes money. 
      You can be as creative as you like, but if you don’t make money, you’re going to go under, and take all the jobs with it.

      I’d rather be involved with an authoritarian manager who knows what he’s doing and can get the staff to do it, and who can assure the survival of the company, than with a consensus manager who spends more time worrying about the creativity of the process than the reality of the output.

      Authoritarianism may stifle creativity, but lack of direction and drive certainly stifles productivity.

    • Macca says:

      06:42am | 13/02/12

      Acotrel, neither comes first. The two are mutually dependent.

    • acotrel says:

      05:37am | 13/02/12

      The powers that be, must rely on young people not being risk conscious.  If young people really thought about what a marriage , home, mortgage and kids involved with no secure tenure, they’d never go there ! Lucky they are led by their genitals ?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:45am | 13/02/12

      No job security = No mortgages for first time buyers and higher mortgage defaults in a downturn. In a recession this means banks holding a lot of negative equity on the books. A workchoices type legislation in an economic downtown is just asking for a bank collapse…..

    • Direct says:

      07:07am | 13/02/12

      Don’t worry! We can always support the banks with tax payer money, like the Australian Bank guarantee.

    • marley says:

      07:50am | 13/02/12

      @Direct - you do understand that what was being protected there was depositor’s savings, not the banks’ income?  Most countries have guarantees on deposits, though not for the amounts that Rudd guaranteed.

    • BarraBob says:

      05:48am | 13/02/12

      Get rid of the unfair dismissal laws and a lot of the problems outlined above will disappear. Employers will not employ people they can not reasonably dismiss if they do not perform or simply do not suite their needs and yes this can some times come down to personalities. This is the reason that so many workers are employed through agencies because if they do not fit the employers needs they can easily be replaced with someone more suitable or got rid of altogether. Unfair dismissal laws do not create employment.

    • acotrel says:

      06:18am | 13/02/12

      @Barrabob
      The unfair dismissal laws have never been a problem.  If a business owner approaches an employee and quietly discusses their relationship, offering four weeks wages so they can look for another job, the employee will always accept the money ! End of story ! - Under those circumstances a case for unfair dismissal can never proceed !  The problem lies with uneducated business owners who don’t know how to sack people ! John Howard is a wanker who has never had a REAL job !

    • Macca says:

      06:40am | 13/02/12

      Acotrel just summed up a major proem with the fair work Act; go-away money to prevent unfair dismissal.

      Although, if a manager acted in the manner Acotrel suggested below there is no guarantee an unfair dismissal claim couldn’t be taken to FWA, particularly on the grounds of constructive dismissal.

    • nihonin says:

      07:12am | 13/02/12

      I’d trust a Mafia run shop over a union run shop any day, if you want protection.

    • T-rev says:

      09:00am | 13/02/12

      Any lawyer who has done any work with Fair Work Australia will tell you that the Fair Work Act is one of the poorest excuses for legislation ever.

      An usually high percentage of claims are nuisance claims, like the person I saw who claimed unfair dismissal after being fired for “borrowing” money from the till.

      It is the only act that has a specific section (s 376) that provides for costs being awarded against lawyers and paid agents if they:

      (1) caused costs to be incurred by another party to the dispute because the lawyer or paid agent encouraged the person to make the application; and
      (2)  it should have been reasonably apparent that the application would have no reasonable prospect of success.

      Now, that is shorthand for “we expect that there will be a huge lot of bullshit claims being made against employers, so we need to scare the lawyers into not running them”.

      No other legislation has this type of section to try and protect against such claims. None of them have ever needed to specifically address outside of costs being in the discretion of the court.

      It is a sad day when you have to recommend to a client that they should probably just offer the former employee a couple of thousand dollars just to go away, as the sensible commercial solution, as they will otherwise waste more than that in legal fees even if they win.

      The Fair Work Act is one of the worst things to happen to IR reform.

      That’s not to say WorkChoices was perfect, it had its own flaws, but just not to the extent the FWA does.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:58am | 13/02/12

      T Rev
      Nuisance claims can be felt with and poor legislation can be tweaked and corrected - get a real reason.
      There is no relationship between management and workers even though both are people.
      While a structured class system exists a la Capital and Labour there will always be a need for “unfair dismissal.” but its appears to have become a whipping post for the anti-workers rights brigade, who would dearly love to go back to the future of feudalism.

    • Borderer says:

      02:26pm | 13/02/12

      The company I work for had to pay out a guy who had claimed to have been bullied by two casual employees (that left shortly afterwards). He went on ‘stress’ leave and took us to court. He won because we had only his statement to rely on, the burden of proof lay on the employer.

    • Nilbog says:

      02:56pm | 13/02/12

      @ Dieter Moeckel

      At least T-rev seems to be someone who has first hand knowledge of the problems with the law as it presently stands, opposed to you who doesn’t.

      You seem to prefer a more academic approach, instead of facing real world problems.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:18pm | 13/02/12

      @ T-rev: Whoa, hold on, I think you might have missed part of the Act there.

      Firstly, 376 is in the General Protections section of the legislation—that’s not the Unfair Dismissal part.

      Section 401 is the corresponding provision that deals with costs against lawyers and paid agents in unfair dismissal claims.  It’s identical to 376.

      But in either event you’re missing section 611, which prescribes that FWAcan make orders for costs against another party if
      (a) FWA is satisfied the person making the application (or responding) did so vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or
      (b) FWA is satisfied it should have been reasonably apparent to the first person that their application (or response) had no reasonable prospect of success.

      I grant you those orders are only rarely made, but that protection is there.  Work Choices (the Workplace Relations Act 1996) had equivalent provisions—generally, you don’t get costs unless you’re a total lunatic.

    • Tubesteak says:

      06:08am | 13/02/12

      Seems to be symptomatic of the unskilled labour market. No-one to blame but yourself. If you weren’t smart enough to get qualified in a profession or trade that will be in high demand then you have no excuse for your predicament.

      They are the homogenous replaceable masses who add little value other than being a warm body. No-one is owed a living in this world. No-one is special. You have to earn your place by doing whatever is necessary to get there

    • acotrel says:

      06:27am | 13/02/12

      @Tubesteak
      ‘If you weren’t smart enough to get qualified in a profession or trade that will be in high demand then you have no excuse for your predicament.’

      We can’t all be medical professionals.  What makes YOU immune from being thrown onto the scrap heap when you are 45 ?
      If I was a young bloke starting out, what ‘profession or trade’ would you recommend that I should direct my studies towards ? That advice is usually provided by school teachers who’ve never done anything other than teach - the blind leading the blind !

    • acotrel says:

      06:40am | 13/02/12

      @Tubesteak
      ‘Seems to be symptomatic of the unskilled labour market. No-one to blame but yourself.’

      Which ‘unskilled’ jobs are you talking about? Even cleaners must have TAFE Certificate 4 in Assets Maintenance these days ! Tell us YOUR qualifications, and I’ll tell you when you will become unemployed.

    • Macca says:

      06:46am | 13/02/12

      Tubesteak, I’d argue that it is specialized skilled workers who are struggling. There are plenty of low-skilled job opportunities around at the moment, however opportunities for those who have spent 20 years in manufacturing operations, retail and banking customer service, I reckon those are the demographics who will struggle to find work.

      They are certainly skilled workers, just in employment areas in decline

    • Direct says:

      07:13am | 13/02/12

      @acotrel, if you were a young bloke starting out, I’d advise you to join the armed forces and get trade qualified while you were there as a diesel mechanic, electrician or some other trade the mining industry wants and then shop yourself around all the backwater places. Then once you had a secure enough asset base, you could move to somewhere you like and open your own business. I would advise against IT or Finance as these jobs can be easily off shored.

    • Tubesteak says:

      07:52am | 13/02/12

      acotrel
      Didn’t say they had to be only medical professionals. You can also be lawyers, architects, bankers, accountants, engineers. Plenty of professions. Then there’s the trades. The mines are paying big money these days and will be for at least the next 20 years. There’s a multitude of trades they need. All you need is the willingness to work. We’ll also always need teachers so there’s another role. Do your Dip Ed and get going.
      The thing that makes you immune from being thrown on the scrap heap at 45 is working your way up the ladder and always keeping your skills current. Too often have I see the over 45 brigade unable to read an Excel spreadsheet. They still persist with printing it out and talking about the numbers on the page as if they mean something when it’s the formulas generating the numbers that mean everything.
      I doubt all the cleaners I see in the office at night have Cert 4s.

      Macca
      Ged was having a whine about the low end of the market. I don’t see much of a problem in the specialised high-skilled sector. Manufacturing in this country is dwindling because it’s not competitive. No point paying an Australian $50 per hour when you can pay a Chinese $1 per hour. Retail banking and customer service aren’t high skill. They can be done in a Philippino call centre.

      Direct
      Another good piece of advice. Get the army to train you in a trade and then go and work in the mines. Finance still has good jobs, though. But not in the low-end schlepper types of roles. Plenty of need for investment bankers with a CFA though.

    • John the Zombie says:

      08:09am | 13/02/12

      @tubedteak, sadly acrotel has been proved wanting on many occassion. Just to let you know Acrotel my uncle runs a cleaning business. His business cleans both offices and shopping centres. He is doing quiet well for himself. He has not, let me repeat this he has not been required or requires his workers to get a cert IV. Your so fully of it that I cant believe you like to comment on things you dont know about.

      Note my parents owned a cleaning business for over 20 years.

      Is this a repeat of your taxi driver comment.

    • Anubis says:

      08:28am | 13/02/12

      @ Tubesteak - youa re well off the mark there. I have been working in temp non-ongoing roles for 10 years nows. I have undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in chosen field and am half way to a further, advanced, postgraduate degree. I work in a specialised and technical field.

      I have seen the things that Ged refers to - the unfulfilled promises of permanent work, the insecurity between contracts, the inability to take holidays (no accrued leave entitlements), Public Holidays are a real pain in the butt, particularly the Christmas and Easter shut downs due to no Public Holiday pay, no sick leave.

      As for the furphy that temp work pays better than permanent - that is a load of hooey when you take into acount what you don’t get - sick leave, public holidays, accrued annual leave, long service leave accrual, being able to know that next week you will still be working. It is not conducive to stability in family or personal life.

      I a, at least, fortunate that I amat the tp of the game in my chosen field, however, this does not translate into permanency. Every temp role I have applied for in the past 10 years I have gotten, every permanent role I have applied for my application has been rejected, yet some of these companies have actually asked for me, through the Agency I work for, to come and fix up the mess that the numpties they hire have created.

      The enforced break over Christmas is always the worst - you drop over $1000 in wages and it usually takes until at least the end of February to get back on level ground as far as bill payments and household expenses go. BTW - Income protection insurance is not available for contract temp workers.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      08:29am | 13/02/12

      @John The Zombie

      I was a cleaner previously doing Government building and Australia Post offices and I had to be trained in OH&S also how to use buffer machines etc.

      We had a guy come in from a private company over the course of a few months to enable us to get our certificates.

    • nihonin says:

      08:35am | 13/02/12

      John the Zombie, give acotrel credit, remember he has pretty much done it all, right now he’s completing his ‘hand on it when commenting’ phase.

    • marley says:

      09:37am | 13/02/12

      @Anubis - aren’t you effectively saying that you can’t get a permanent job because it’s cheaper for the employer to pay you as a casual, even at a higher wage, than to employ you permanently with all the additional costs of that permanency?  Doesn’t that mean effectively that the costs of permanent employment are too high for a lot of employers?  That reducing some of those costs might make it more attractive for an employer to hire people on a permanent basis? For example, if the employer didn’t have to worry about providing you with long-service leave, if sick leave and vacation entitlements were less, perhaps he might give you a permanent job.  You’d have fewer benefits than under the present system, but you’d have more security.

      It just seems to me that workforces are being casualised because the rigid, entitlements-laden structure we have now no longer suits the needs of the employment market.  Perhaps, if we want to reduce casualisation, we need to reduce entitlements as well.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:08am | 13/02/12

      Anubis
      In what industry? How do your qualification stack up against others in your industry?

      Even where I work there is a ready pool of casual work but they are the exception rather than the rule. Only about 10% of the workforce in my sector and only really used during peak season. Usually, it’s pretty obvious why they can’t get full-time work eg their experience isn’t all that great, their qualifications and skills don’t match their years of experience, they took too much time out for one reason or another, they’re just not that good and it becomes apparent from a sketchy resume that they are a risk.

    • Anubis says:

      10:14am | 13/02/12

      So @ Marley - when did you last approach your employer and ask them to pay you less and reduce your entitlements to leave and other entitlements?

      What businesses get by casualising their workforce is a loss of accrued business knowledge. Every temp or casual that walks out the door takes a slice of business knowledge and understanding out of the door with them. This is the intricate understanding of the way in which the business operates - its individual idiosyncracies, so to speak. Your corporate knowledge increases to a certain extent and then diminishes. Employers also lose the benefit of any training that may have been conducted and the skills and knowledge that particular employee brings to the business.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:18am | 13/02/12

      I once moonlighted for Speedy Springs Cleaning in Alice Springs. I’d mop-up while the ‘boss’ put down the stripper; put down the polish while the ‘boss’ polished.
      We cleaned the loos and the ‘boss’ did his hare of the pedestals and the sinks. Then looked back at a sparkling lavatory and said proudly ” WE did a good job!” Then he produced a stubby and we sat for 20 minutes for a beer and a smoke before the next job.
      The public service ‘manager’ had us fill in little bars in various colours to define what we’d achieved each hour, each day, each week for weekly discussion and amelioration - so we fudged.
      Workplace relationships is what its all about!

    • marley says:

      11:55am | 13/02/12

      @anubis - I wasn’t having a go at you, just theorising that perhaps the pendulum has swung too far towards employees and too far away from employers, and that a little rebalancing might be in order. A lot of employers work on a knife edge of profitability - and things like leave loading and long service leave might be enough to push them over that edge.  If current labour practices are inhibiting permanent employment, then surely that means we need to look at our models?  That’s what I’m saying.

    • Old Fogey says:

      06:09am | 13/02/12

      The big issue towards casualisation is the difficulty in terminating the services of a permanent employee.  Make no mistake, there are occasions when employees stuff up big time or fail to pull their weight.  The employers right to sack underperformers has been eroded severely.  In the push for job security, unions have in fact achieved the opposite.
      We need to retore the right to fire; instant dismissal should be the employers right under certain circumstances.  The warning should be built in to the terms of employment.
      If the balance between employer rights and employee rights is restored, there will be a move to more full-time employmment.

    • acotrel says:

      06:44am | 13/02/12

      @Old Fogey
      The only time instant dismissal is warranted, is when there is flagrant disregard of OHS requirements.  That includes bullying, as well as putting others at risk in other ways.

    • Macca says:

      07:09am | 13/02/12

      Acotrel, how about Fraud, destruction of property, breaches of company policies (IT) or bringing your company into disrepute?

      The onus in employers under the fair work act to ensure process is strictly followed makes termination of employment expensive and bureaucratic.

    • Direct says:

      07:17am | 13/02/12

      I’m really confused as to how companies don’t have the right to terminate employees. As a full time employee it is written into my contract that I can be terminated for not following reasonable work direction from my immediate manager. I would have thought this was the case everywhere?

    • Al says:

      07:17am | 13/02/12

      acotrel - Thats not quite right.
      An employer is also able to instantly dismiss an employee who is engatging in serious or gross misconduct.
      This can include things such as fraud, theft, repeated failure to follow policies and procedures etc.

    • acotrel says:

      07:41am | 13/02/12

      @Al & Macca
      I take your point.  You are of course quite correct .  But I don’t think too many people would pursue an unfair dismissal case after committing a criminal offence, especially if the employer calls in the police.
      ‘Bringing the company into disrepute’ is the difficult one, there’s a bit of room for imagination there.

    • Fairsnotfair says:

      07:53am | 13/02/12

      This is so very true - as a constantly prospective employer, I need an employee to actually do the job and make an increased return for me in the process. The majority of employees are unbelievably inflexible and arrive with a chip on their shoulder towards “the bosses” because “they” are apparently wealthy - debts notwithstanding. How many employees understand the very nature of business requires heavy borrowing?

      Correct employee selection is a frightening procedure, fraught with threats of legal and union action. Consequently, we now only recruit’contractors or casual employees on an “as needed” basis. Permanent staff are simply too expensive and/or too inflexible. Expensive with sick leave, the carer’s leave, holiday pay, maternity obligations, workers’ compensation insurance, superannuation administartion and all the other costs associated with employing staff. Much safer for the employer to simply get a contractor in or grab a casual for a day or two.

      The unions have done an amazingly effective job of pricing employees out of a permanent job both financially and emotionally.

    • acotrel says:

      08:07am | 13/02/12

      @Fairsnotfair
      ‘Correct employee selection is a frightening procedure, fraught with threats of legal and union action.’

      Perhaps it is time that ther were legal requirements for management training for prospective employers ? There seems to be a lot who don’t even know the basics.

    • TChong says:

      08:17am | 13/02/12

      fnf
      you decry sick leave, super, insurance, and so on.
      employees are inflexable and have chips on their shoulders?
      Unlike you, of course.
      Employers with this type of aggressive stance to employees are the very reason Unions and FWA exist.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      08:33am | 13/02/12

      @FairsnotFair

      “Permanent staff are simply too expensive and/or too inflexible. Expensive with sick leave, the carer’s leave, holiday pay, maternity obligations, workers’ compensation insurance, superannuation administartion and all the other costs associated with employing staff. Much safer for the employer to simply get a contractor in or grab a casual for a day or two.

      The unions have done an amazingly effective job of pricing employees out of a permanent job both financially and emotionally. “

      Yes damn those rights workers have, should go the China model or the USA one aye?

      I’m sure you loved all the benefits whilst you were a worker?

    • Macca says:

      08:35am | 13/02/12

      Acotrel, do you want leadership or management training? Balancing the books and balancing workplace relationships are both complex skills required to effectively runs business, but they are very different skills.

    • Macca says:

      08:50am | 13/02/12

      Acotrel, I can tell you that I have dealt with many unfair dismissal claims when an employee has been dismissed for safety breaches, bullying and harrasment or illegal activity. The excuse is always that people make mistakes.

      As frustrating as it is to provide the go-away money, the amount of time spent formulating your responses to the employees ambit and vexatious claims is truly frustrating ands waste of time

    • Fairsnotfair says:

      11:01am | 13/02/12

      @ Acotrel & TChong: are you sure you want to question employees’ rights not neing adequate? I’m very sure employees have more “rights” than employers.

      Let’s start with 4 weeks paid annual leave plus being paid with loading for the time you are absent.  Hmmm .... this doesn’t strike me as being overly productive in a business model. Paying someone more to be on holidays than to be at work isn’t sound business strategy.

      Paying increasing costs of workers’ compensation insurance because of the increasing number of fraudulent claims in the workplace. This is a cost to employers - not employees.

      Paid maternity leave: why should an employer pay for a lifestyle choice? This one definitely does not make any money for an employer. In fact the additional training for the replacement and paid leave for this absent reduces the ability to employ more people over the longer time.

      The list of employment costs is long and never borne by the employee. How many companies are forced to either employ a person to attend to this ridiculous administration scenario or access the services of an agent to do it? Another cost associated with employment.

      But hey! It’s all good because the boss is rolling in it! Isn’t he?

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:10am | 13/02/12

      While I can agree with you FnF, there is a marked status differentiation in the Australian work environment, but it doesn’t need to be there. A business thrives on good management - worker relationship and often it is kept quiet because the workers just don’t leave a good firm - loyalty works both ways - if you try to screw the workers the workers will certainly screw you and if the workers screw management then management will surely screw the workers.
      I’ve worked for small business where the boss rolls up his sleeves and lend a hand and the workers in respect will do voluntary overtime to get a job done while the boss runs himself ragged to get them a feed and carton of grog all because its Christmas eve and the crane hire is over $200.00 an hour (1972 wages)
      The labour and capital relationship is not a war - is a cooperation!

    • St. Michael says:

      05:45pm | 13/02/12

      @ Arnold: all due respect, mate, but you might want to link to the actual decision that case was about and not an employer’s summary of it: http://www.fwa.gov.au/FWAISYS/isysquery/3a22a1c9-7b97-4bf9-8578-6f31ce444a4c/1/doc/

      Note in particular what the Commissioner had to say at paragraph [47] of that case when he gave his reasons for decision:

      In reaching the conclusion that the termination was harsh, I do not intend any material criticism of the respondent: it was entirely proper for the respondent to treat seriously the misconduct constituted by repeated failure to wear safety glasses. Other employees of the respondent should not interpret this decision as in any way endorsing a disdainful or careless approach to safety or the respondent’s safety policies. If the applicant had substantially lesser service, had not been a middle aged man with very poor employment prospects for whom the dismissal has such serious personal and economic consequences or if it had been brought home to him at any time on 2 September 2009 that a further breach would have serious consequences, I would not have concluded that the dismissal was harsh.”

      I don’t think unfair dismissal law is fair, myself, but argue it on the facts, not on commentary.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:49pm | 13/02/12

      P.S. Also note this from paragraph [46] of that case:

      I have also come to the view that, while the applicant should be reinstated, the relative seriousness of his misconduct should be marked with a ‘sanction’ of significance by denying him most of his lost wages. In effect, he will have suffered a penalty of about three months pay – in the order of $18,000 – as a consequence of the misconduct.

      Normally if a Commission reinstates an employee it also forces the employer to pay their lost pay, too.  An effective $18,000 fine for breaching safety is better than Worksafe usually gets against an employer.

      And then this, as the last paragraph of that case:

      While the applicant will be reinstated, he should recognise that his misconduct was serious and appreciate how close he came to having the dismissal decision upheld. Moreover, the respondent should be entitled to deal with any further misconduct by the applicant as if he were on a final warning in relation to a failure to comply with an instruction from a supervisor in relation to observing safety policies.

    • Blerghhh says:

      06:37am | 13/02/12

      “It has been driven by businesses that want the freedom to hire and fire and shift the risk of their business onto employees.”

      can someone explain to me why a private company shouldn’t have the freedom to hire and fire staff? it is after all the company that pays the wages, and if someone isn’t pulling their weight that than it would certainly make sense to get rid of them.

    • I hate pies says:

      08:52am | 13/02/12

      Because in Geds world business owes it to their employees to pay above award wages and keep them on forever, regardless of current market conditions.

    • I hate pies says:

      09:01am | 13/02/12

      The bit about business risk is my favourite part of this article. Ged expects the employer to bear all the usual risks of doing business, yet she also thinks the unions should be able to dictate how that employer conducts their business. If you don’t bear any of the risk you forfeit any right to control the business.
      I don’t know why we still have unions at all really. We simply don’t need them anymore. Everything they fight for is protected under legislation - wages under awards; health and safety under volumes and volumes of legislation, ditto for anti discrimination.
      Why do we need unions at all?

    • Freddy the fact finder says:

      07:14am | 13/02/12

      “We want this to be a debate based on facts, and the voices of the Australian people.”

      If the ACTU and therefore the ALP want this to be based on facts, why not invite business and industry to participate in this traveling circus??

      I know why, it is because they don’t want to hear the truth and continue to brainwash workers that business is out to get them. Moe disgruntled workers, more union membership, more votes for Gillard. It is a disgrace the ACTU and other unions get away with this.

      Businesses outlay all the risk and therefore are entitled to run them however they want.

      If the ALP actually wanted to seriously help, they’d help businesses rather then continuing to tax and punish them. It’s no wonder flexible working options are the norm these days when businesses don’t know what they are going to get slugged with next thanks to Gillard, Brown and Co.

    • nihonin says:

      07:36am | 13/02/12

      ‘if the ALP actually wanted to seriously help, they’d help businesses rather then continuing to tax and punish them.’  But they are helping out business Freddy, the ‘welfare, it’s my right’ industry.

    • acotrel says:

      07:45am | 13/02/12

      @nihonin
      The ALP intends to use the mineral resources rent tax to reduce company tax.  Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting ?

    • nihonin says:

      08:38am | 13/02/12

      acotrel says:

        08:45am | 13/02/12

        @nihonin
        The ALP intends to use the mineral resources rent tax to reduce company tax.  Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting ?


      You actually believe that, do you acotrel, like all money garnered by this government, it’ll be put towards the ‘surplus’ we must have.

    • Ian F says:

      09:27am | 13/02/12

      Freddy the fact finder: Maybe you should get a clue before rubbishing the piece. Business and industry have been invited to participate. If they don’t participate they have only themselves to blame and have no right to whine about the outcomes.

      And please don’t let the facts get in the way of your ranting.

      ALP has been hard at work supporting business in this country. I recall all those bail outs during the GFC. The unions in a variety of sectors working with employers to prevent closures during the GFC. Then there’s all that corporate welfare that gets handed out.

      I love how the ‘get a job’ brigade here complain about what workers get but seem to have no problem in the huge amounts of largesse given to companies that cry poor; demanding that the government do something.

      Perhaps if the managers in this country did something about managing instead of using pathetic, out-dated management styles from the 1950’s, then corporate Australia could do better than rely on tax-payer money.

      But then the likes of Freddy the fact finder would find themselves with very little to do.

    • Gregg says:

      11:03am | 13/02/12

      I suppose on way the ACTU and ALP in partnership could address all the problems is to seek investments to buy out ailing businesses and run them.

      No doubt there would be some interesting employer experiences!

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:29am | 13/02/12

      Ian F
      No company got a bailout from the Australian government during the GFC. NAB did apply to the US government for a bailout under their rules for their US loan debts. The Rudd government backing of deposits was for bank deposits only and it was never actually used (anyway all deposits with banks are guaranteed so it wasn’t much of a guarantee more a reminder of government obligations to the financial industry).

      The only assistance that comes to mind is the waste of money on the car manufacturers. If you go through recent Punch articles you will note that I’m against that, too.

    • Holly says:

      08:32am | 13/02/12

      Many comments above completely distort the actual effects of unfair dismissal requirements.  All the hype surrounding unfair dismissal is just that.  Urban myth perpetuated by lazy management who cannot be bothered to develop a workplace policy or go through a proper dismissal process to protect themselves.  The statistics are there for all to see - the exaggerated negative effects of unfair dismissal requirements are a complete furphy.

      I have yet to come across a “flexible” working arrangement which is not to the disadvantage of an employee.  My daughter left for work at 3.45am this morning to start work at 4.30 am.  She will work until 6.30 pm and arrive home at 7.15pm.  The “contract” company she works for does not pay shift allowances nor overtime and pays hourly rates barely above the minimum.  Employees are rostered in such a way as to avoid overtime payments.  The randomness of the shift work ensures that no second job is really possible.  My daughter wears an airline uniform (though not directly employed by the airline).  No wonder Qantas workers are fighting the imposition of such conditions.

      So all you staffers sitting in your cosy, unproductive highly paid jobs really do need to get out like the politicians, and see how workers in this country are already being exploited.

    • Macca says:

      08:54am | 13/02/12

      What’s the term for a sock-puppet who is not the author? A plant?

    • I hate pies says:

      09:10am | 13/02/12

      What you speak of there hasn’t changed in ten years - you get overtime once you get past 38 hours in a week, regardless of how many hours you do in a single day.

    • TimB says:

      09:22am | 13/02/12

      A muppet.

    • AdamC says:

      09:44am | 13/02/12

      Holly, while it is likely that there are rogue employers out there who unfairly dismiss employees, the costs of unfair dismissal laws outweigh the benefits of preventing these dismissals. In any regulatory framework, costs and benefits need to be balanced. That is why speed limits aren’t all 10km/hr, or why we don’t prudentially regulate every business. Unfair dismissal laws may be based on a nice ideal, but opening up all employers - fair and unfair - to the risk of litigation whenever they terminate someone’s employment does not make any sense in the real world.

      “I have yet to come across a “flexible” working arrangement which is not to the disadvantage of an employee.”

      Actually, often workplace changes can be mutually beneficial by removing outmoded and destructive work practices. For exampe, my employer provided staff with the choice of retaining flex time, or having the chance to earn a bonus for good performance. I accepted the trade-off, as I have quite reasonable hours and the use of performance incentives is culturally positive.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:30am | 13/02/12

      ” The statistics are there for all to see - the exaggerated negative effects of unfair dismissal requirements are a complete furphy.”

      Indeed the statistics are there, at Fair Work Australia’s site.  I suggest people go and have a look at them: http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=aboutannual

      These are Fair Work Australia’s annual reports which include the stats for unfair dismissals generally.  In general, these things can be noted about unfair dismissal applications:

      - They are increasing.  Not doubling from year to year, but certainly are on the rise.  On the other hand it’s not clear whether that’s because of the GFC or simply because Labor relaxed the unfair dismissal requirements.  I would tend to think the latter because the GFC did not result in an across-the-board job loss scenario, which would be reflected in a rise in unfair dismissal applications.  Also, Labor’s biggest change was to remove the “no unfair dismissals for firms with less than 100 employees” down to a cutoff of 15 or less.  Given there’s a lot more firms with less than 100 employees than more, you would consequently expect an increase.

      - Only a tiny number of unfair dismissals actually go to trial: roughly 10% of those filed, on the most recent report, slightly more than that as you go back through the years.  And that’s even despite the fact that, going only by the statistics, employers tend to win the cases they defend: the employee only wins in roughly 15% or so of cases that actually make it to trial.

      There are three reasons I can see for that.

      The first is the employer’s cost of defending the matter, which AdamC identified.  It is almost invariably more economical for an employer to settle a case out than fight it, even if you are in the “right”.

      The second is that there is no “opportunity cost” to the employee—unless you are a madman and you demonstrate yourself as so to a Commissioner, you will not have costs awarded against you after trial and thus it costs nothing but your time if you represent yourself or get a union to represent you.  But again, settlement also favours the employee: better to get a few weeks’ cash out of an employer than risk the lot by going to trial.

      The third is that there is no cheap mechanism to wipe out a claim which has absolutely no chance of success.  A counter clerk at Fair Work has no power whatsoever to reject a claim that’s filed after the 14 day time limit, nor do they have power to reject a claim where there were less than 15 staff in the business.  All of these matters will make it to a “conciliation” (read: settlement) conference and a “conciliator” from FWA will usually wheedle the parties into agreement since, again, it costs money to take a jurisdictional point like this as it has to go to a hearing.

      - It is functionally impossible on the statistics to demonstrate whether unfair dismissal applications are motivated mainly by genuine cases of bastard employers dismissing people unfairly.  The overwhelming settlement rate simply does not tell us whether the employer was in the wrong or not, whether the employer simply preferred to pay out rather than take it to trial, or whether the employee’s case was so mindblowingly bad that the conciliator talked them out of going further.  I would suggest, though, that given the very low rate of success against an employer in a trial and the fact that there’s no costs against an employee that loses, there is a very, very large factor of cases which simply are the employee rolling up to “have a go”.

      For employers at large, though, the lesson is stark: it is contrarian, and it will cost you more, but taking the matter to trial statistically favours you on these results.  I know it costs, but I would argue that paying out in cases of clearly justified dismissal is akin to paying ransom: it is beggaring thy neighbour.  Or, as Gary Sinise put it in the film “Ransom”, “You’re the sort of guy who pays.  So you’ll pay this time, too.”

    • TrueOz says:

      08:33am | 13/02/12

      “We want this to be a debate based on facts…”

      That would be a first for “Liariat” at the ACTU. I’m sure that the outcome of the inquiry has already been determined.

    • Bomb78 says:

      12:20pm | 13/02/12

      They will just take three years or so to tell us what the outcome is!

    • Gregg says:

      08:56am | 13/02/12

      It’s all a vicious circle Ged and until the likes of the ACTU and governments accept that massive population increases abroad fueling low labour costs and the WTO level playing field principles will also mean a balancing of lifestyle for those in developed countries, there can be no solution to employment security.

      Welcome to the new real world Ged, it not being one that we had twenty years ago.
      If companies here in Australia can not compete internationally, be it with exports or against imported goods, they can only sustain minimal profit or losses for so long and then it’ll either be they will fold or move their base abroad where conditions are easier for them.
      Meanwhile, of course those companies that are hoping to survive will look at all forms of workplace practices and employment variation to reduce unit costs.

      If the ACTU and Labor do not want to recognise the pressures they impose on employers and wish to erode their competiveness even further, they are just shooting more than their feet off.

    • The Old Man says:

      08:57am | 13/02/12

      Ms Kearney
      If you friend Christine, the TAFE teacher, was performing at the top of her profession, regardless of whether she was full-time, part-time or casual, she would have no fear for her employment continuity. I am 58, I was working on a full time casual basis with my current employer before I was made permanent. We have a couple of ‘casual’s on the books to cover absences of full-time staff because I work for an employer at a site that has rather unusual staff qualifications, yet I average anything up to 3 extra shifts a month, and sometimes more, because no-one else wants to come in and cover a shift.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:28am | 13/02/12

      The Old Man - What Christine is worried about is not keeping her job at the expense of another employee - she is worried about keeping jobs! That is her job might just disappear - not they she might be replaced.

    • jade (the other one) says:

      01:17pm | 13/02/12

      @The Old Man - schools are staffed strictly on student numbers. And it’s not a generous allowance.

      In QLD - every school is required to submit the number of students who have attended school up to Day 8. Based on that allocation, the education department makes a determination about whether the school either gains or loses teachers. At the first school I worked at, we were told on Day 10 that one year 9 form class would be collapsed entirely, because there were 24 students per class, so that teachers could be “lost”. The 22 students in the 5th class were shared among the remaining 4. This meant that some classes had more students than was “legal”, but the state government demanded the loss of three teachers based on those numbers. Because teachers are generally employed on a contract basis now, it meant that those teachers who had thought they had a job for the year, no longer had one. Most were graduates or second or third year teachers. Guess how many remained in the teaching profession? Zero.

      The inability to find

    • Kika says:

      10:22am | 13/02/12

      Yeah I’m really tired of it. Big time. We’ve got a new micro management system which is designed to see areas where we need less people. It’s horrific. It makes everyone feel stressed, our morale is at a all time low and the bad thing is we don’t have the luxury of finding a new job because jobs are tight at the moment. Which annoys me to no end because insurers and banks are still all posting profits.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:26am | 13/02/12

      Wrong ‘The Old Man’ reasons are so obvious no need to explain
      Kika been there done that in the 1980’s little blocks of time to colour in - compare little boxes and please explain at the weekly unpaid staff meeting.
      I pity you - your whole team need to learn to fudge so that all boxes are always perfectly filled in - it will confuse the management no end when they can’t ask why? to the answer of why what?
      This is the relationship that wrecks a good workplace, a workplace where the stronger carry the weaker and don’t begrudge to burden, where equality does not mean congruence.

    • Kate says:

      10:45am | 13/02/12

      Good on you Ged and the ACTU for pushing for this inquiry.

    • Anjuli says:

      10:56am | 13/02/12

      At least Julia Gillard now has her gold card for life, others too who have done the year in the top job, even after their demise their spouses continue on with the benefits.

    • Reasonable says:

      11:12am | 13/02/12

      There have been some great debates to date about this issue, but I think there is one big cultural pink elephant in the room.

      If everyone was to think about their company as their own, they would have a different idea about how well our employment law works for us. Business owners are quietly suffering the effects of these issues; unable to talk at the risk of becoming a target for a legal or union campaign. Trust between businesses and employees have been eroded over time, by clever manipulation of the laws that were meant to protect employee rights. Those employee ‘rights’, have become a blanket meaning for any occasion someone hasn’t gotten their way and made a mockery of the whole system.

      There is a long history in Australia of taking advantage of your employer - ‘chucking a sickie’, ‘going on compo’, getting a ‘government job (holiday), RDO’s ecetera, ecetera.

      If you had your own business, would you be happy negotiating the terms and conditions of employment for your people with a third party who don’t understand your business or customers? Would you be happy employing people who came to work just ‘to get paid’? After investing thousands of dollars in training programs and meeting compliance for tax, OHS, law and leave requirements, would you be happy knowing your employees could potentially take all that investment and leave with just a few days or weeks notice - or worse, breach your requirements and become a massive liability for your company and customers; only to take you through an expensive and time-wasting legal process?

      Hard-working Australians are not the norm anymore. Those who are suffer the effects of large numbers of people looking for any means to get out of doing work.

      The people making decisions in the area are out-of-touch with business owners and employees. Most business-owners are not out to screw employees; they become embittered through having to suck up the constant pay-outs and humiliation of being treated like centrelink by their employees. There is no leadership from the government about what the future of the Country looks like and why people should change their mentality to a more flexible approach to work.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:20am | 13/02/12

      FFS - there is more to life than bashing the opposite political party

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      12:52pm | 13/02/12

      Job security? What is that?
      Ever since our politicians, be they ALP, Lib,Nats, Greens et al. decided that it was acceptable, no, desireable that almost all of Australia’s Manufacturing
      Sector should be handed over to other countries, thereby in a continuing act of Treason, addressing the Unemployment Problems in those countries & creating it in Australia no-one has had Job Security.
      Yes, since 2007 the Federal ALP government is claiming it has created over 700,000 new jobs. It is strange that despite those 700k new jobs the Unemployment Rate in Australia has actually risen by 0.7%. Not my figures. Officially reported stats!
      For years we have had an inefficient Motor Vehicle manufacturing Sector which has been propped up by State & Federal Government’s pouring billions upon billions into them and all to no effect because those running the shows are too stupid to get it into their heads that Australians no longer want the type of care they are producing. Those companies don’t give a toss because they already have huge Car Building Plants in cheap-labour foreign countries in which they are actually producing cars we want to buy!!
      Yes it will be a pity when Ford, GM-H & toyota pull out of Australia but it is inevitable. The current Federal ALP Government & the SA State one are jumping up & down about how this sector must be maintained. It’s a great pity they did not carry on in the same way when the entire Textile & Footwear manufacturing Sector went off-shore and, increasingly, the Food Manufacturing Sector is going the same way. Do we hear our politicians howling about that? No. Why?
      Is it jumping up & down about the Car Sector because the ALP knows that as this sector is still virtually a “Closed Shop” so far as the Unions are concerned & the ALP collects unreported 100s of 1000s of dollars from the unions involved. Quite undemocratically part of each union member’s dues are given to the ALP. This despite the fact that not all union member’s actually support the ALP!

    • jade (the other one) says:

      12:53pm | 13/02/12

      I certainly appreciate that as an Australian, I have a right to expect overtime pay. As an Australian worker in a permanent job, I can’t be sacked if I can’t work outside of my regular hours. I appreciate the knowledge that I can’t be sacked if I refuse to have sex with my employer. That I can’t be sacked because of my race, religious belief or lack thereof, gender, or because my employer decides they’d prefer their cousin/brother/daughter/niece/nephew in my role. That I can take sick leave when I need it, and not have to drag myself into work, and make myself sicker, because I can’t afford to take a day off.

      If employers hadn’t spent years exploiting employees, unfair dismissal laws wouldn’t be necessary.

      Perhaps, rather than fighting for permanent work, employers should start being made to apply the same rights (sick leave, holiday pay, etc) to casual employees. They should also be made to PROVE that there is no longer work, and that contracted labour is the only solution for their business needs.

      Casual labour is not “giving people a fair go”. What on earth has happened to this country that employers see it as their right to deny people sick leave and holiday pay, long service leave and overtime and penalty entitlements, all in the name of profits? How dreadful that this is what a country which fought long and hard for these rights has allowed this to happen.

      Further, I appreciate that

    • St. Michael says:

      02:53pm | 13/02/12

      The high settlement rate on unfair dismissals would seem to indicate that a number of employees who make an unfair dismissal claim are just having a tilt at the lottery wheel, because it only costs them $55 to do so and statistically has a very high chance of netting them a couple extra weeks’ wages without having to go through a trial to get it.  That is a serious abuse that is well beyond the “fair go”—the old, tired, undefined phrase that, like theme, means anything you want it to mean.

      “They should also be made to PROVE that there is no longer work, and that contracted labour is the only solution for their business needs.”

      You might like to actually read the Fair Work Act.  An employee has to prove a redundancy is other than genuine if he alleges unfair dismissal.  The employer in effect does have to be able to demonstrate genuine operational reasons if that is the reason relied on for dismissal

      I might also note that demanding the government direct an employer how to run its business is, by application of the definition, fascism.  Fascism as defined by Wikipedia, advocates “a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state.”

      By demanding that business prove contracted labour is the only solution to their business needs, failing which a dismissed person must be re-employed, you are actually demanding that the State direct business how business should organise its affairs.

      Note I am not calling you a fascist, only pointing out that this would appear to be where your views lie on this particular issue.

    • jade (the other one) says:

      04:09pm | 13/02/12

      @St Michael - people who are on contract or casual labour don’t get dismissed. So they cannot appeal under the Fair Work act if their contract isn’t renewed. This is wrong.

      Child labour laws, OH&S and anti-discrimination legislation are all part of telling a business how it should be run, too. Is it facism to prevent a business from employing 5 year olds?

      Businesses and employers are exploiting casual labour to get out of paying entitlements that workers deserve, and to preserve their ability to exploit them. They are not giving workers a fair go. And if they cannot be trusted to do so on their own, then yes, legislation should force them to.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:08pm | 13/02/12

      “people who are on contract or casual labour don’t get dismissed. So they cannot appeal under the Fair Work act if their contract isn’t renewed. This is wrong.”

      No, actually, it isn’t.  It is the law in this country and was the accepted common law in all our courts prior to the Workplace Relations Act and the Fair Work Act alike for the better part of a century.

      If you are a contractor, you control how you do the job and when you do it.  I can’t tell my electrician exactly where to drill because I contract him to do a job for me.  Contractors don’t get dismissed because they are hired to do a specific job, and if they do not do that job, not being rehired is the smallest of the things that can be done to them—someone who does not complete a contract could in theory be rightly sued by the person who paid the money to them to do the job, just as I could sue my builder if he didn’t build my house correctly.

      What you are obliquely referring to as far as contract labour is concerned is sham contracting—something that, despite millions of dollars behind it, the CFMEU hasn’t been able to prove exists other than in one or two isolated cases, and which doesn’t largely exist in the private sector.  When a case like that is detected, the Fair Work Ombudsman investigates and if it thinks sham contracting has been done, it prosecutes.  There is no additional protection needed.

      Casuals, meanwhile, are explicitly recognised as casual.  Nobody forces you to sign a casual contract; there are eminent protections in the Fair Work Act against that.  A casual contract at law is a short term contract that only exists from period of work to period of work, and it is terminable at an hour’s notice by either party.

      Again, this is a long-recognised form of employment, well before the Fair Work Act or the Workplace Relations Act came along.  The benefit that applies to a casual contract is the 20% loading that invariably applies to every hour of a casual’s work—that is meant to be the compensation.  You will note the ACTU trumpeted this issue in the past, winning another test case which suggested the casuals should in fact be permanents due to the way they were rostered.  Very few casuals took it up because they didn’t want to give up the tasty bonus you get from casual hours, so we now see the ACTU reframing the debate about “job security”, when in effect what is being sought when you look at the mathematics of it is a pay rise.  The ACTU knows it attracts criticism for promoting inflation when it demands payrises, so it reframes its payrise arguments in another way, as it has done here.

      “Child labour laws, OH&S and anti-discrimination legislation are all part of telling a business how it should be run, too. Is it facism to prevent a business from employing 5 year olds?”

      Straw man, as well as the old “think of the children” argument again.
      Your premise in each of these cases is erroneous, and has been selected for its emotional value rather than disputing the logic of my earlier propoisitions.

      Child labour laws are not telling a business how to organise its own affairs.  They forbid the employment of children below a certain age outright.  They are therefore not fascist.
      OH&S laws also do not tell a business how to organise its own affairs.  OH&S laws give a legislative code to the law of negligence when it comes to worksites—again, it is not telling business how to run its affairs.
      Anti-discrimination legislation is likewise not telling a business how to organise its own affairs.  It addresses the issue of equal opportunity to a job, redressing sex, race, and other factors.  At its highest does not purport to tell an employer that he must employ a black person over a white person or take someone who is not qualified for the job—that we call affirmative action, which the US does so much so that their President is an affirmative action appointment.

      By contrast, your demand that an employer “prove” it has no more work to do, and that contracted labour is the only way it can meet its business needs, is telling a business how to organise its own affairs and how to make a profit or cut its costs.  That is a fascist form of government intervention.  I would suggest that you simply concede that you demand some fascism in the interests of protecting society at large.  You may do not like the label, but I cannot help that: per the definition of fascism, that is what you are seeking.

      On the other hand, you haven’t addressed any of the points I made, so I’ll say little more about it.

    • cynic says:

      02:38pm | 13/02/12

      This was the same deBate the actu ran a decade ago on casualisation of the national workforce. Now they lump in contract labour & subbies, which they hate as subbies are not union members and do not go on stike. The actu ran the casual conversion test case in the AIRC a decade ago thinking many casuals would convert to full-time employees but history showed minimal uptake. Why? Most did want to take a drop i pay by losing the casual oading. Of course, the casuals want the casual loading then paid sick, pay, paid holidays, annual leave and get 25% more than their full time employee mates. Suppose ged says that’s fair.

    • Seth Brundle says:

      03:26pm | 13/02/12

      This is just another symptom of the ongoing erosion in the standard of living for average Australians.  I am not even 40 years old yet but even in my time I have seen my own quality of life declining year after year.  Get used to it people, its only going to get worse.  You need to learn to accept that this country is now all about increasing corporate gains at any expense, including your quality of life.

      Personally, I am starting to look overseas for where I will live and retire.  I don’t want to do it here.

      Any average Aussie who did not buy their house 10 years ago has missed the boat and will never be able to catch up.

    • Leigh says:

      03:54pm | 13/02/12

      It’s not the “Australian workforce as a whole” if 40% of the workforce are affected, as the author says. How can you believe people who are obsessed with minorities when the majority (60%) is not affected. How reliable are people who claim that a minority is the ‘whole’? People who write in such slapdash way invite immediate suspicion.

      And, of course employment has changed, as has the entire world and economic situation. But, the employers have NOT “…shift(ed) the risk of their business onto employees.”

      That is the silliest claim I have ever heard from a unionist. Employers risk their own money – and often their own family homes – on the business. While nobody wants people to lose jobs, it is not all beer and skittles for employers either; they stand to lose much more. They don’t get handouts like the dole unless they wind up and sell all of their plant. If they can cut the cost of employees and still keep going, they can keep themselves and their families and, in better times, start employing again.

      Of course, the ACTU is always going to try to make employers look bad, particularly while their precious Labor party is in Government. And their government ‘wing’ is just where they should be casting the blame.

      The Left certainly holds the whip hand at the moment. The unions have been returned to their prominence by Labor, and Labor has made it harder for business, and favours the worker. The problem is that the Left expect business owners to be still able to compete, grow and employ when they are shackled by Labor’s unreasonable IR Acts.

      Workers who cannot get permanent, secure jobs should be blaming the Labor Government and the unions for their predicament. Labor has sold them out, just like they have sold the entire Australian population out.

      Small businesses are our biggest employers. Labor politicians and union officials simply do not understand anything about business and what makes it tick.

    • ?? says:

      05:53pm | 13/02/12

      i lost my job last year, and spent 6 months unemployed. i couldnt get the dole because of my large savings account, so i have now taken a job as a manager in a store. the job has nothing to with my past work experience or what i studied in college, but its a job for now.  i will try and buy myself a house outright this year, so if i get shown the door again, i can relax a little bit and maybe get a little training compliements of the govt.

    • Alan Walters says:

      10:54am | 15/03/12

      I run a small to medium sized business and I guess the question for any society is what do they see as important: a robust economy or a financially obese labour pool. I for one take the Churchill line from the Breton Woods meetings; that debt and uncertainty are good forms of control. I am fed up with having to manage my business around the petty demands of my employees; they want holiday pay, sick pay, super and even paid time off when their relatives die. Its my business and I want them to work. And don’t even get me started on OHS, I have spent thousands this financial year creating ‘safe systems of work’ and having some jumped up union safety rep telling me how I should run my business.

      This country needs an end to these union laws, an end to secure employment, OHS and super. Lets have an economy fit to compete with the developing world.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Anthony Sharwood

@BrettS69 the loveliest thing about post-origin is the sledges from gloating qlders #ratherbeagoodloserthanapoorwinner

Anthony Sharwood

That is the video referee howler to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers #stateoforigin

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Lying on a cold table in an unfamiliar place and undergoing a core biopsy was probably one of the most…

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

Red alert, ladies. Making jokes about your ability at work is not funny particularly at board level.…

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Punishing the baddies is only fun in the movies. In real life it’s messy, expensive, and fraught…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter