Last week’s ACTU congress had a focus on insecure work, with their independent report (Lives on Hold, Unlocking the Potential of Australia’s Workforce) taking centre stage. It’s a thoughtful and well researched contribution to the increasing use of non standard work, and the alienation of so many workers from that basic value we share with Australia : a fair days pay for a fair days work.
There’s so much in this report that would ring bells in New Zealand. Here’s what Kathy says :
“I have had 40 jobs with 20 different agencies/ labour hire over the past year. They tell me it could lead to permanent employment but it never does. We are always let go and sent somewhere else at the end of our three-month trial. We are made to feel disposable and some places I am sent to the managers and employees say ‘Oh you’re just a casual’. This might be true but I still need to eat! I am always negotiating with the bank around my mortgage because I can’t lock in secure work.”
It’s a discussion we should be having in New Zealand, but instead the NZ government is about to embark on a wholesale attack on the very heart of our employment relations system. Rather than attacking basic rights, wouldn’t it be great to be debating and implementing creative, progressive reforms? Wouldn’t it be great to have an inclusive society that provides sustainable and decent work for all, that strikes a balance between maintaining economic competitiveness and security for NZ working people?
Sure, the Aussies have their problems, but they are looking ahead. They’re talking about it.
In New Zealand, the government is nurturing a dog eat dog attitude.
It’s your fault if you aren’t on top and for goodness sake, don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Having an insecure income means that people will be more fearful of losing what they have and so will be desperate for any work and so will work for less. It’s all part and parcel of the capitalist system of transferring the wealth to the few.
If you want to end this exploitation then end capitalism.
The problem is we are in another supply/demand type situation where there is not the demand for labour so employers can pick and choose how they operate to maximise the company’s profitability.
Darian, I absolutely agree with you.
Our country is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) – article 7 states that
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays
It seems to me that these are hollow words when we look at the current working conditions of many New Zealanders. As we look to the future – it only seems bleaker for those in casual work and minimum wage jobs.
“If you want to end this exploitation then end capitalism.”
I reckon if anywhere in the world that could ever happen, the little starship waka that could, would probably be it.
As a foreigner, I see a country of warriors and sons of pioneers – Nothing ‘Once were’ about it.
I reckon you’ve still got a bit anti nuke and apartheid in you.
That should read anti apartheid (why can’t we edit within the final minute before cutoff?).
Anyway, point is, as long as kiwis don’t actually start believing the anti worker rhetoric, we’ve always got a fighting chance.
It’s as ever, only one cause, one spark and one win away.
Hi Darien, this the most important issue of our time. Thank you for your post.
The grinding down of all PAYE workers, including white collar and middle management, by the new conventional wisdom of execs and HR, aided by the policies from Treasury, is driving down economic growth. It makes the country poorer and benefits only a few for a limited time.
Many people take it on their own shoulders that they are not “successful” enough or that they may have made some wrong trade choice. This dumbing down of the most flexible and hard working people in the world is de-moralising and no-body wins from it. That is affecting kids of all backgrounds: this incompetent government is not even selling HOPE; our people are voting with their feet and emmigrating. We have to give our people hope: visionary realistic hope; and we have to make that future happen.
Please ask all electorates to provide you with a public forum, with the local MP, to tell this message. Every Electorate should work with unions to invite members to these events. I’ll propose it at New Lynn LEC tomorrow.
Many small companies take on someone for a short contract but often nothing comes from it. The short term arrangements don’t lead to a fair exchange of time and pay for the work required as the small business wants to offload all the risk. Many of the small businesses want to dictate terms without being fair.
The impact of crowdsourced labour on some professional fields is also a concern. It is slowly converting the workforce into a casino model, where the workers have to compete with others just to get the chance for being paid something for their time.
Darien
On Kathy’s story above … lets see. 40 jobs in the past year and always let go and sent somewhere else. Lets be approximate. A new job every 9 days. Kathy is very keen to work. Darien is very keen to publish bad news as the government is promoting dog policies. Don’t let truth get in the way Darien.
This Government is further creating the them and us model where you are either involved in the ruling decision making group or you will do as you are told group, as we know better.
The problem is we have a Government who is hoodwinking us by telling us the problem is related to the GFC however world commodity prices have been at record levels in recent years.
Government borrowing is out of line especially when we are borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, who are the people who least need financial assistance, fuzzy logic in my book. However 33% of people in the country obviously believe National have it right.
So that’s 40 jobs for just under three months each, in a little over 12 months. So 40×3= 120 months. Unless 10 jobs are being worked at once that doesn’t quite add up…
@Russell and Ethan Kathy has been working for Labour Hire firms. Read the report and you will understand how that works. It’s not my story : it’s a quote from the report which you should read. There’s plenty more like Kathy’s.
So Kathy’s working for temp firms and complaining about getting temp jobs.
Darien , the numbers don’t add up, can you tell us how many of these jobs involved 90 day trials
@ Inverness: point scoring and denial will get us nowhere in what is a serious situation in NZ
Thanks for a reply Darien. I’ve read the original report on Kathy and, respectfully, you have misunderstood if you stand by the “in one year” claim. The reporter said Kathy she had one six month job. Kathy worked with 20 “temp agencies’ during the year, usually let go after three months. The “40″ places she was sent to suggest she was quickly let go. Why? No answer provided but emotive language by the reporter about having a mortgage and the process being soul destroying. No comment about her performance on the job. This emotive stuff takes us no distance towards diagnosing problems and solving them.
You know the old saying, “people get the government they deserve.” Heck if every working man voted in each election and based their votes on the issues, there would never be any attack on workers conditions. We would still have the 40 hour week instead of hordes of underemployed people grasping at part time work for a pittance.
I defy any National or Act member of parliament to look a voter in the eye and say that they really, really, really believe that a supermarket worker can bargain on equal terms with an employer. The notion that they could was bullshit from the first time it emanated from a right wingers mouth.
Russell : let me make it clearer for you. Kathy was registered with 20 recruitment or labour hire agencies, who would have been sending her to work on a day to day basis – sometimes just to work for four hours she says. She could easily have had 40 jobs in a year. She would have been on a three month trial with each of the agencies – that doesn’t mean she worked every day – it means that when the three months were up, it was tough luck, the permanent work she was led to believe it could lead to would disappear. If you really read the report, you would know that Kathy works from day to day, starting at 6am ringing around the agencies, hoping for work, and ending late at night scanning the websites looking for something for the next day. It’s not emotive. It’s real.
I was a member of the Panel that heard these submissions – Darien, thank you for posting this article and yes it is true that we are trying to look ahead because there are some quite serious problems for the whole of the Australian economy as a result of the growth of insecure work over here.
There will most certainly be some people who like Russell doubt that those people who told their story could possibly be hard working people who want a permanent job. I guess that might mean that it is beyond his experience – but it is true. There are a significant number of hard working and intelligent and productive people from all works of life who can’t get permanent work. Very few jobs that are created these days are longterm or secure.
Why is this so hard to understand? Perhaps, and I hope this is true that there is better legislation in NZ than there is in Australia. Those who work for Labour Hire companies in Australia are often required to set up as a self employed person with an Australian Business Number. They don’t get casual wages and they don’t receive the protection of our legislation because a casual worker is not an employee.
I sat on 19 of the 24 hearings and I want to say to Russell not one person was a whinger and had their hand out – most of them just want to be able to get their long term casual job recognised as a permanent job. One group of witnesses have been casual for more than 25 years. I am no expert on NZ law and maybe Russell is an expert on Australian law and knows all of the loop holes that an employer here can use.
Kathy’s story is not the most shocking or disturbing – it is a very regular story and one that could be told by many workers in Australia.
One of the big problems for hard working people is that there is a real stigma in society to not have a permanent job. They don’t want handouts and they pay tax and their way in this country. Why should they not receive the same benefits of other workers who do the same job – to me the values of justice and fairness have been diminished by those employers who systematically convert their labour force to insecure jobs. Not all of them do so because of their own ideology though – in the layers of production of goods and services it is often the pressure from the top of the order that sets up an avalanche resulting in cost cutting. This is most common with large retailers here ie Coles and Woolworths and impacts on all of their providers all the way to the food producer and also the major banks. Does NZ have a similar situation with powerful duopolies controlling certain industry markets?
I commend Russell to read the whole report before he judges a real person from the comfort of his desk.
@Jill Biddington. Thanks for commenting Jill. I think you’re right in that some people have no experience of casual or labour hire work, and can’t get their heads around it. We have the same problems here, but I doubt if Russell would accept that.
@Russell – it would be good if you explained it to your friends and linked Jill’s comment as well. I think they need to understand how this works as well.
Draco – you said (and i think you were serious ” If you want to end this exploitation then end capitalism.”
no just trying to think how well socialism has worked in USSR, East Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, Poland, and recently Greece, (and the other European Nations) and then I really wonder if you are at all serious, or just deluded.
Capitalism (with all its faults) does deliver better standards of living, innovation, wealth and long life than any other economic doctrine. It is socialism that has failed, and always will fail eventually. Capitalism goes hand in hand with ambition, self responsibility, wealth creation, leisure, freedom of choice and even democracy.
Life might be tough for Kathy. But I am pleased she is still looking for work.I have to wonder and would love to understand each of the 40 different jobs she has done – and then work out why? but with only the information above to go on no conclusion can be drawn. I remember 20years after my father passed away – My Mum aged 56 (in 1992) tried to find work – not an easy task given the recession of that time and her age. But she had persistance and enevtually did find work. Becoming a beneficary and moaning was not going to help. Self responsbility and upskilling and a positive attitude did help. Good luck to Kathy – I hope you find something very soon.
Hello Jill
Yes my chair is comfortable. I work long hours sitting in it and chose a good one many years ago.
On the emotive stuff. I appreciate anyone’s difficulty in getting a job. I appreciate Kathy’s feelings. As a reporter you have a right to serve up her feelings. As an analyst and commentator you have made no case here for more repressive workplace laws as you failed to also mention feedback from the businesses who hired Kathy. Why did they let her go? Was it because they had no need to employ her longer or because she was not suitable or a combination of both? Without this information you case is mostly emotive. Real yes; compelling no.
And by the way I did not judge the person Kathy, I made a comment on the reporting.
I am not an expert on Australian law not did I suggest Katy is a whinger. I do ask if you are a whinger? By complaining about casual jobs not having “just and fair” security. If there were plenty of positions available the firms hiring casual workers would out of a demand and supply market, improve the conditions. If the overall market is weak and caused by overheads (think carbon tax) introduced by the current Aussie government, any job should be welcome. (with qualifications of course) In the para below you elevate the economic misery caused by whatever factors into a justice and fairness issue. I too support justice and fairness. Emotive presentations such as you have made do not make a case that employers are unjust or unfair. They may be. But you have not made the case.
((
Why should they not receive the same benefits of other workers who do the same job – to me the values of justice and fairness have been diminished by those employers who systematically convert their labour force to insecure jobs. Not all of them do so because of their own ideology though – in the layers of production of goods and services it is often the pressure from the top of the order that sets up an avalanche resulting in cost cutting. This is most common with large retailers here ie Coles and Woolworths and impacts on all of their providers all the way to the food producer and also the major banks. Does NZ have a similar situation with powerful duopolies controlling certain industry markets?
))
Darien thanks for replying. I understand the problems less skilled workers have with casual jobs. I have taken many in my life as a software developer taking contracts. I live in an envirenment of “no performance – no pay”. There is no income if I cannot perform. I accept there are many problems in the economy in NZ. But elevating Kathy’s problems into a justice and fairness case and using emotive cases to argue for workplace rules that truncate job creation is not a solution… it looks to me like failed socialist ideology. Tug the heart strings and say “Trust me … Darien has a solution for you”. The solution could lead to fewer jobs over time. “diagnose befor we operate” is a good rule, for both of us. Re-presenting socialist ideology with emotive spin is not helpful.
Hi Russell,
Like you I have spent the last 3 years working in contract employment. 2 years of that was for local government as a “locum” where I was theoretically there week-to-week. Of course, there are contract positions where you can make enough money that you can tolerate a lack of employment security.
But don’t assume what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
When I was a student I used to take vineyard work over each of my holidays. The sort of work where you have to call in each day to check whether the plant development is such that your services will be required. Where you have to ring in to check whether the weather is suitable for you to work that day, often being told to bugger off home (with no further pay) if it does really set in. The sort of work where there is no security of income day-to-day.
That situation, and Kathy’s situation, is very different to the situation that you and I are now in… because for every contractor who can make it work, there are plenty of people who can’t and would be better served by the security of employment.
But the jobs are not out there for them to take…
@Russell : Kathy’s story is one in a 90 page report. First you were saying it was impossible and didn’t add up. Now you’re saying it’s emotive. If I ever get the chance, I would love to take you to meet some of NZ’s Kathys. Then you will see that it’s not about emotion. It’s about real life.
Casualised underemployment has been the norm in NZ since the late 1980′s except here it is referred to as “portfolio employment”.
It suits some professional contracting roles where the base hourly rate is in the $100s per hour, but not minimum wage just in time labour.
I’ve often wondered if a minimum daily wage would more effectively protect marginalised employees (given the high fixed transport/time costs of attending work). This would encourage employers to either provide sufficient hours, or a sufficient wage.
Social welfare policy (WINZ) also contributes to forcing a fragmented work life for marginalised employees due to the egregious benefit clawback (up to 70 cents in the dollar before tax) when one earns more than about $80 per week part time, casual. This enables employers to pay less per hour to lots of casual employees, but thereby reduces the income security and meaningful job prospects for many. It is a case for unemployed either find a full time job (challenging at best) or work a limited part time job where one profits from only the first 4 hours of effort (following 2 1/2 hours to pay tax and transport) at minimum wage.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3498204/Single-mum-worse-off-after-taking-paid-work
the situation for unwell beneficiary is slightly better than for “unemployed”.