Australia’s workforce is made up of the following types of workers: 62.4% - full-time and part-time; 19.3% - casual; 9% - independent contractors; and 9.3% - business operators. To derive the figure of 40% of the workforce being in ‘insecure work’, every casual, every business operator and every independent contractor in Australia, as well as some full-time and/or part-time employees would need to be included. This is clearly spurious. Most independent contractors are happy with their arrangements and have no desire to be employees. Also, business operators cannot be regarded as being in insecure work – they run their own businesses, and commonly employ other people. The report states that about 1.25% of workers are employed by labour hire firms, but these employees are included in the above figures, mostly as casuals, and should not be double- counted. The report also states that 4% of workers are engaged on fixed term contracts but these are also included in the above figures for full-time and part-time employees and should not be double- counted. Whichever way the statistics are cut or added, the alleged figure of 40% of the workforce being in insecure work does not withstand the most cursory scrutiny. It may be that the 40% figure has been derived by adding employees who work particular patterns of hours. The report states that ‘(w)orking time insecurity is also experienced in the form of excessive hours’.33 No doubt many managerial and professional employees in secure jobs would be amazed to hear that they have been deemed to be in ‘insecure work’ in the ACTU’s report, simply because they work long hours. The Lives on Hold Report simplistically seeks to demonise all casual employment and non-standard working arrangements, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the employee’s engagement, and characterises it as “insecure work”. It reaches this conclusion absent any rigorous consideration of or evidentiary case regarding the circumstances in which casual employees are engaged, why they are so engaged or their working conditions. For the reasons we have here provided, the Inquiry should not give any weight to the Lives on Hold Report. Its observations, characterisation of casual employment, conclusions and ACTU Lives on Hold Report at p.17.
Australia’s workforce is made up of the following types of workers: 62.4% - full-time and part-time; 19.3% - casual; 9% - independent contractors; and 9.3% - business operators. To derive the figure of 40% of the workforce being in ‘insecure work’, every casual, every business operator and every independent contractor in Australia, as well as some full-time and/or part-time employees would need to be included. This is clearly spurious. Most independent contractors are happy with their arrangements and have no desire to be employees. Also, business operators cannot be regarded as being in insecure work – they run their own businesses, and commonly employ other people. The report states that about 1.25% of workers are employed by labour hire firms, but these employees are included in the above figures, mostly as casuals, and should not be double- counted. The report also states that 4% of workers are engaged on fixed term contracts but these are also included in the above figures for full-time and part-time employees and should not be double- counted. Whichever way the statistics are cut or added, the alleged figure of 40% of the workforce being in insecure work does not withstand the most cursory scrutiny. It may be that the 40% figure has been derived by adding employees who work particular patterns of hours. The report states that ‘(w)orking time insecurity is also experienced in the form of excessive hours’.33 No doubt many managerial and professional employees in secure jobs would be amazed to hear that they have been deemed to be in ‘insecure work’ in the ACTU’s report, simply because they work long hours. The Lives on Hold Report simplistically seeks to demonise all casual employment and non-standard working arrangements, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the employee’s engagement, and characterises it as “insecure work”. It reaches this conclusion absent any rigorous consideration of or evidentiary case regarding the circumstances in which casual employees are engaged, why they are so engaged or their working conditions. For the reasons we have here provided, the Inquiry should not give any weight to the Lives on Hold Report. Its observations, characterisation of casual employment, conclusions and ACTU Lives on Hold Report at p.17.
Supplementary-submission-Ai-Group.docx