Submission 167 Australian Council of Trade Unions Workplace Relations Framework Public inquiry

Flexibility for whom?

What did ‘flexibility’ mean for workers during the 1990s? Many have argued it translated into increased work intensification, long and unpredictable hours and a deterioration in their work-life balance. On the other hand, some have argued that flexibility is a two-way affair, and that workers also gain flexibility. They point to the use made of casual employment by students, actors and artists as examples of the desirability of non-standard jobs like these. Women with family responsibilities are also often included in this list, but the argument here is less convincing since their desire for flexibility generally concerns specific hours during the week, rather than intermittent employment. Their needs for flexibility could be met within the framework of permanent part-time work⁵⁶, and indeed findings discussed in Chapter 11 suggest there is a greater demand for flexible part time work among women.

What is the situation in practice? When it comes to flexible start and finish times, only about half of women workers have an entitlement to flexible start and finish times and this differs little by hours of work or mode of engagement (Table ). When it comes to those workers with parental responsibilities, the picture is no better. Indeed, the particular categories of employment which are most flexible for employers are actually least flexible for their employees.
Table : Entitlement to flexible start and finish times, Australia 2013 (%)

Category	Male	Female	Male	Female
			parent	parent
Full-time permanent	60	57	61	54
Part-time permanent	57	48	78	50
Full-time casual	49	48	48	46
Part-time casual	54	55	46	52
Fixed term	56	52	49	46

Percentage in each category who were entitled to flexible start and finish times in their employment. Parental status based on those with responsibilities for any children aged 17 or less. Source: HILDA Release 13.

Earlier studies using HILDA data which looked at job satisfaction for non-standard employees suggested that casuals were happy with their lot: the overall job satisfaction scores for women casuals and those on fixed term contracts were no worse than those for permanents.⁵⁷ Among men, however, the scores were lower. When it came to satisfaction around job security, both casuals and those on fixed-term contracts scored much lower, particularly the men. Watson criticised this reliance on subjective assessments of overall job satisfaction as a poor substitute for looking at the actual quality of the jobs, particularly the remuneration which was considerably worse among the casual workforce, leading Watson to characterise casuals as ‘contented workers in inferior jobs’.⁵⁸

It is, nevertheless, worth looking at subjective appraisals across a range of aspects of a job since the variations themselves can be informative. In Figure we look at notions of fair pay, use of skills, worrying about the future longevity of the job, and concern about the worker’s incumbency in the job. The latter two are aspects of job insecurity, the first focussed on whether the job will continue to exist and the second on whether the worker will keep their job. All of these scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and for all except the worry item higher scores are more positive outcomes. The most striking feature of the payment item was the overall clustering of the scores in a narrow band and their overall stability over the period. Only part-time casuals stood out, and they were slightly more satisfied than the rest. These satisfaction levels reflect the remuneration for the job, not the situation as far as living standards go. As the earlier discussion on preferred hours showed, many of these workers would be facing high cost of living pressures despite the fairness in their pay.

When it came to the job making use of the worker’s skills, both full-time permanents and fixed term employees scored highly, while part-time casuals scored lowest. Again, this aspect of the job was fairly stable over the period, as one would expect. When it came to worrying about the future of the job, labour hire workers, full-time casuals and fixed term employees were the most concerned, and these scores declined in the lead-up to the GFC before climbing again in the aftermath. The part-time casuals and part-time permanents shared similar profiles, confirming the earlier observation about the ‘permanent casual’ oxymoron. Interestingly, permanent full-time workers were more concerned about the future of their jobs at the end of the period than were the part-timers.

Figure : Various attributes of jobs, by employee category, Australia 2001 to 2013

Y axis shows average scores on agreement scales (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) using trimmed means (5%).

Paid fairly = `I get paid fairly for the things I do in my job'

Use skills = `I use many of my skills and abilities in my current job'

Worry for future job = `I worry about the future of my job'

Secure future in job = `I have a secure future in my job'

Source: HILDA Release 13.
Finally, job security as it is generally understood—that is, whether a worker will keep their job—showed distinct profiles for the employment categories. Permanent employees— both full-time and part-time —scored much higher throughout the period, though their scores began to drop in the period after the GFC. The least secure workers were the labour hire, and casual workers, both full-time and part-time. The gaps between the most secure and the most insecure workers were substantial, as much as 1.5 points on this 7 point scale. The scores for job security for full-time casuals and labour hire workers rose strongly during the first part of the period, but declined in the period after the GFC. The part-time casuals again showed a more distinctive profile with very little variation across the period.⁵⁹

These findings emphasise a number of important points about non-standard employment. The variations in pay among different employment categories, and the notions of fairness attached to this, are not problematic in the abstract (although as we explain in Chapter 7, a more holistic view paints a different picture). This is largely due to the way the industrial relations system deals with this situation, providing pro-rata conditions for permanent part-timers and various loadings and penalty rates for casuals. On the other hand, the lack of opportunity by part-time casuals to use their skills reflects both the nature of these jobs—generally routine low skilled jobs—and the likelihood that overqualified workers are employed here (see below for more discussion on over-employment). While most employees felt confident that their jobs would continue, whether they would hold those jobs was a different matter. Particularly for non-standard employees the levels of job security were much lower than among the permanent workforce. Finally, in terms of the business cycle, there does indeed seem to be a pattern of greater insecurity present after the GFC, something evident in other data around more constrained spending and increased concerns with household debt. Clearly, the GFC was a wake-up call for many households. At the same time, the more risk-averse behaviour of employers—in not engaging more full-time permanent employees—has probably been observed by their staff and translated into scepticism about their own futures.