Thinking thoroughly through casual reform

Unions and businesses have very different views about workplace casualisation, with the Morrison government hoping to square the circle as part of an upcoming industrial relations reform agenda.

On the list of areas Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced to be reviewed in a speech in late May were workplace casualisation, awards simplification and enforcement of existing rules.

Rethinking the rules around casual employment will have added pressure after a recent Federal Court ruling.

In the WorkPac v Rossato case, the court ordered an employee who had been contracted by WorkPac as a casual be paid a series of entitlements on the basis he had been working under the same expectations as a permanent employee.

Resource industry lobbyists AMMA warned the decision would mean businesses that had paid a casual loading to workers would be up for additional costs, which would push some firms over the edge.

Casual work has been a hot political issue in Australia, with the Australian Council of Trade Unions calling in mid-May to halve the number of people in insecure jobs.

The ACTU called for limits on extensions of rolling fixed-term contracts, a right for casual workers to become permanent after six months, and to expand the Fair Work Act to include gig economy workers and other groups.

While much has been made about a rising rate of casual and other insecure work arrangements, the data shows a complicated story.

The Melbourne Institute’s ‘Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey’ research shows the portion of Australians in casual employment fell from 22.5 per cent in 2001 to 21.7 per cent in 2017.

The portion employed on fixed-term contracts rose from 8.3 per cent to 10.1 per cent over that period.

For workers aged 65 and over, the segment on casual contracts fell from 35.3 per cent to 29 per cent.

But young workers between 15 and 24 moved in the opposite direction, with the share in casual work up from 48.2 per cent to 54.1 per cent.

All this indicates that while the proportion of the workforce in casual employment is largely unchanged, there has been a big move in casualisation away from older workers and towards younger employees.

Melbourne Institute argues that is probably linked to educational opportunity.

“The increasing share of casual contracts in this age group can in part be explained by a parallel increase in the share of full-time students,” the institute said.

“Whereas in 2001, close to 50 per cent of workers in the youngest age group were full-time students, the share was 54 per cent in 2017.

“There is a close link between being a full-time student and casual employment, with ... 74 per cent of (full-time students) aged 15 to 24 years, being on casual contracts.”

Any changes would need to consider a range of impacts.

About 51.4 per cent of workers on casual contracts were happy with the number of hours they worked, according to Fair Work Commission research published in 2016.

However, 46.4 per cent wanted more hours. Some employers with inconsistent demand are more likely to advertise job opportunities if they have less restriction of casuals, while there is a conflicting possibility permanent jobs could be switched to casual.

AMMA said demonising casual employment arrangements was short-sighted and far removed from reality.

“Business needs all the options it can get, and as much confidence as can be mustered, to get people back into employment as quickly as possible during the post-pandemic economic recovery period,” the AMMA said.