Publications
A Casual Discussion: Casual alternative wrongly demonized
OCCASIONAL PAPER
The proposals to give casuals 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.
The proposals to extend holiday and other leave entitlements to casuals under awards and legislation, could at a cursory glance lead some casuals to become excited thinking that they could double dip by receiving holidays on top of their paid out entitlements. But this is not the process being suggested. Instead what is being proposed is simply that all casuals have an ability to revert to full time status losing their paid out entitlements and the extra they receive on top. To convert to full time would actually cause casuals to lose income.
Further, 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. Campaigns to decasualize workforces exposes more workers to financial loss in company collapses.
Why then the proposals? 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.
The argument is 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 has not diminished the demonization campaigns which seem to be driven by a view that casualisation is an employer plot. But if the South Australian case studies of worker demand is closer to the truth, casualisation reflects a broad shift in the structure of society.
This includes the greatly expanded needs of students who require 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.