The proposal by the federal ALP to give casuals access to full time holiday and other entitlements reflects a long held view that any work that is not full time and not permanent is somehow illegitimate.
This is a view that ignores simple mathematics, appears out of step with community expectations and seeks to impose one model of business operations onto business.
Workers are attracted to casual jobs. They normally receive 6 to 11 percent higher pay than full timers and are paid on the spot. Under most awards, full time entitlements equate to about 19 percent of workers' weekly pay. Award casual loading is mostly between 25 and 30 percent putting, casuals' income way in front of full timers. Casuals are paid their entitlements in cash each week.
If the ALP proposal were to add additional holiday and other leave to casuals -- when they already have their leave paid out -- it would on the surface seem to enable casuals to double dip.
This could initially excite casuals giving them up to 30 percent higher pay than full timers. But business wouldn't carry the additional cost and would have to make casuals permanent, saving business up to 11 percent on weekly wages which will come from the pockets of casual employees.
Being paid leave entitlements in cash each week saves casuals from the risk of company collapse. Full-timer "entitlements" are in effect loans made to companies. When companies collapse, full timers become creditors whereas casuals credit risk is limited to one week. The ALP proposal potentially limits casualisation and exposes more workers to financial loss in company collapses.
Why then the ALP proposal? There is a strong view amongst industrial relations and human resource academics, some managers, unions and some industry associations that the only socially legitimate form of work is full time, permanent employment.
These groups argue that national skills development is reduced by the use of casuals, that loyalty to the firm is not possible, that work safety is reduced and that employers avoid their responsibilities when employees are casuals.
The public relations "war" against casualisation has been occurring for about five years in Australia and perhaps peaked as a force at a packed Australian Industrial Relations Society conference in Adelaide early last year.
The three day talkfest featured all the key anti-casualisation campaigners, but what was surprising was the confusion that prevailed in the conference summations. Whereas the underlying theme was that casualisation was an employer plot, several key case studies painted a starkly different picture.
For example a South Australian hospitals case study showed how the hospitals had to offer a wide variety of engagement types to attract and retain staff. Their "standard" forms of employment included full time, part time, casual, contractor, agency and many more.
The diversity of engagement types was driven by hospital workers demanding alternate mixes of work -- or they weren't interested in working. The message of worker demand was repeated at the conference in other case studies.
However the anti-casualisation campaigners brush with worker reality did not diminish the demonisation campaigns.
The ALP policy seems to be responding to the campaigns but it has potential political risk.
If the "employer plot" view is accurate, the ALP anti-casualisation proposal may be seen by employees as saving them from exploitation. But if the South Australian case studies of worker demand is closer to the truth, the ALP risks angering large numbers of people.
This includes students who need casual work, older people who want to stay in the work force but on a highly casual basis, many working parents and people scared of business collapse.
These people have done their mathematics and know the dollar value of casualisation.
The Howard government quietly embarked late last year on a policy of neutralising industrial relations as a political issue in the next election.
If the ALP proposal is counter to community aspirations, an anti-casualsation stance -- even if masked by "worker rights" language -- risks backfiring on the ALP among many people who want casual work.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment