What do the data on casuals really mean - v5

Whatdothedataoncasualsreallymean?

DavidPeetz

ProfessorofEmploymentRelationsCentreforWork,OrganisationandWellbeing

GriffithUniversity

27November2020

TheauthorwishestothanktheAustralianBureauofStatistics(inparticular,ScottMarley,fromtheLabourSupplyandDynamicssectionoftheLabourSurveysBranch)forassistanceinprovidingthedataandusefulcomments,andtheMiningandEnergyDivisionoftheConstruction,Forestry,MiningandEnergyUnionforfinancialsupportoftheproject.

1

EXECUTIVESUMMARYMost observers treat the ABS measure of ‘workers without leave entitlements’ as representing casual employees. Yet this term ‘casuals’ is not one widely used in other countries. Approximately one quarter of Australian employees do not have leave entitlements. This is a very high number by international standards. In the USA, for only 23% of workers in 2018, the employer did not pay vacation leave. This paper addresses three related questions about the Australian labour market: (1) How can we approximate the number of genuinely flexible casual employees? (2) What are the characteristics of work where employees are, or are not, likely to be genuinely flexible casuals? and (3) How many employees are compensated for the disutility of casual employment? The debate over casual employment has peaked because the 2018 Skene and 2020 Rossato full Federal Court of Australia decisions. They showed that while casual employees do not receive leave, it did not follow that all employees without leave were casuals. The critical factor in determining ‘casual’ status is whether there is a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work. Low-wage casuals received a wage ‘penalty’, given their skills, experience and the like, even though the casual loading should have had the opposite effect, that is it should have led to their receiving a wage ‘premium’. This paper uses several alternative definitions for casuals, with three ‘broad’ definitions and two ‘narrow’ ones. For this paper, a ‘narrowly-defined casual’ is a worker who: has been with the employer for less than twelve months, and who do not expect to be with same employer in twelve months time (that is, engaged in short-term work); and did not have the same hours and pay from week to week (that is, engaged in intermittent or variable work), or is on standby; and did not have leave entitlements. We draw on unpublished data from multiple ABS surveys over several years, in particular the Working Time Arrangements surveys in 2006, 2009 and 2012, the 2007 Survey of Employment Arrangements and Superannuation, and at times the August Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership (EEBTUM) surveys in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, as well as some more recent published data for specific issues. Only 6 per cent of leave-deprived workers (1.4% of all employees) are ‘narrowly-defined casuals’. We do not know the number of workers who would be defined as ‘casuals’ as a result of the Rossato and Skene decisions of the Federal Court. It seems likely, however, that it if it were like the concept of ‘genuinely flexible’ casuals it would be closer to the number of ‘narrowly-defined casuals’ than to any of the ‘broadly-defined’ estimates of casuals that were made in ths paper, which ranged from 4.7% to 11.7% of employees. The majority of leave-deprived workers have been with their employer for over a year. The majority expect to be with the same employer a year into the future. Around half have stable hours from one week to the next and are not on standby. The features of leave-deprived employees do not, on the surface, appear to be the characteristics of flexible, casual employment. The common feature appears to be low power. Employers may have the ability

2

to deploy them in all sorts of flexible ways, but often do not need to utilise that flexibility. ‘Casual’ employment reduces employee power and reduces employee entitlements (often without any offsetting ‘loading’) under the guise of providing necessary flexibility. This does not mean that the employment of leave-deprived employees is secure, or that the problem of precarity in employment is exaggerated by the common labelling of leave-deprived employees as ‘casuals’. Most leave-deprived workers are in an employment relationship that can be terminated without notice at the end of a shift. The popular term ‘permanent casual’ is more accurately phrased as ‘permanently insecure’. The high rate of ‘casual’ employment enables Australia to have an internationally low level of leave coverage.

3

Whatdothedataoncasualsreallymean?DavidPeetzAustraliaisseenashavingoneofthehighestratesofcasualemploymentintheworld.YettheAustralianBureauofStatistics(ABS),responsibleforofficialeconomicandlabourmarketdata,doesnotpublishofficialstatisticsoncasualemployees.Itisthuslefttouserstointerpretthedata,leadingtosomewidespreadmisconceptionsofwhatthedatamean.MostobserverstreattheABSmeasureof‘workerswithoutleaveentitlements’asrepresentingcasualemployees.Thisseemstomakesense,becausecasualsreceiveacasualloadinganddonothaveleaveentitlements.TheABSnolongermeasureshowmanyworkersreceiveacasualloading,followingarationalisationofhouseholdcollectionsthatledtosomedatabeingcollectedbienniallyandsomenotatall.‘Workerswithoutleaveentitlements’isthemeasuretypicallyacceptedbyusersintheabsenceofanythingmoreexplicitlyaboutcasuals.Workerswillself-identifyas‘casuals’becausetheemployerhasdefinedthemthatwaybecausetheylackleaveentitlements.YettheABSnolongerusestheterm‘casuals’asadescriptorfor‘workerswithoutleaveentitlements’.Thisterm‘casuals’isnotonewidelyusedinothercountries’officialstatistics.TherearenodatafromtheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)oncasuals.TheclosestconceptinOECDdataisthatof‘temporaryemployment’.Theconceptof‘workerswithoutleaveentitlements’doesnotrelyuponwhetheremployeesare‘temporary’.Workerswhohaveatemporarycontractmaybemorelikelytolackleaveentitlements,butthisisnotalwaysthecase.Sometemporaryworkershaveleaveentitlements(forexample,researchersonfixed-termcontractsatuniversitieshaveleaveentitlements).Andsomeworkerswithoutleaveentitlementsmayhavebeenwiththeemployerformanyyears,eveninthesamejob.Thereisnothinginherentlytemporaryabouttheircontractofemployment,butthereisinsecurityoftenure.ApproximatelyonequarterofAustralianemployeesdonothaveleaveentitlements.Thisisaveryhighnumberbyinternationalstandards.InmostOECDcountries,thereisalegislatedentitlementtoannual(‘recreation’)leaveand/ortosickleave,andtypicallyitisonlygenuinelytemporaryworkersinquitespecificcircumstanceswhodonothaveaccesstoleave.Globally,mostcountries(130outof163)requirethattemporaryworkersgenerallyhavethesameleaveentitlementsaspermanentworkers,including88%ofhigh-incomecountries(Kuddo2018).SuchastandardissocommonthattheOECDdoesnot,asamatterofcourse,publishcomparativedataontheproportionoftheworkforcewithleave.Rather,comparativedatafocusonthenumberofweeksinthatleaveentitlement.AmongstOECDcountries,theUSAandKorealackalegislatedleavestandard.Nonetheless,manyemployersprovidesomeformofleaveentitlementanyway.IntheUSA,for23%ofworkersin2018,theemployerdidnotpayvacationleave(thoughwheretheypaidleave,itwasnormallyforfewerweeksthanAustralianemployers)(Maye2019).Thedebateovercasualemploymenthaspeakedbecausethe2018SkenefullbenchdecisionoftheFederalCourtofAustralia,confirmedinthe2020Rossatofullcourtdecision,required

4

alabourhirefirmtopayalong-term‘casual’annualleave(despitetheirseeminglyreceivingtheleaveloading)asaresultoflegislationintroducedin2009.1Toemployersthisdecisionseemedabsurd,ascasualshadalreadyreceivedthe‘casualloading’,andsothedecisionmeantthatcasualswere‘doubledipping’,beingpaidtwiceforthesamething.Acommonthemeofthesedecisions,however,wasthatthedeterminationofwhetherornotanemployeewasacasualdidnotrelyonwhethertheemployeewasentitledtoleave,orwhetherthecasualleaveloadingwaspaid,orwhetherthepartiesdescribedtheemploymentas‘casual’.Thecriticalfactorwaswhethertherewasafirmadvancecommitmenttocontinuingandindefiniteworkaccordingtoanagreedpatternofwork.Wherethetwodecisionsdifferedwasintheextenttowhichthiscommitmentwastobeobservedsolelyatthetimethecontractofemploymentisestablished,orwhetheritcouldbereassessedinlightoftheparties’subsequentbehaviour.(However,giventhesimilarityinthecircumstancesofthecentralemployeesconcernedinthetwocases—bothwereemployeesofWorkPacPtyLtd—thisnuancedidnotaltertheoutcomesbetweenthecases.)Whilecasualemployeesdonotreceiveleave,itdidnotfollowthatallemployeeswithoutleavewerecasuals.So,aretheworkersidentifiedbytheABSconceptof‘workerswithoutleaveentitlements’genuinelyflexiblecasualemployees?Bythis,wemean:dothepeoplethatmanyobserversandparticipantsthinkofas‘casual’reallyhavenoexpectationoforcommitmentaboutcontinuingwork,anddotheyshowtheothercharacteristicsofgenuinecasualemployment,suchasvariablepayandhours?Thisqueryingofthe‘genuine’flexibilityofcasualsisnotaboutchallengingthewidelyobservedprecarityofthisformofemployment.Workerswithoutleaveentitlementscannormallybeeasilydismissed.Butholdingafearthattheymightbedismissedwithminimalnoticeisnotthesameasexpectingthattheirjobwillonlylastforthecurrentshift,oraweekortwo,orinvolvedifferenthoursfromoneweektothenext.Inthissense,howmanygenuinelyflexiblecasualemployeesarethereinAustralia?And,ifthecasualloadingismeanttobecompensationforthedisutilitiesofbeingacasualemployee,doallcasualemployees,howeverdefined,receivesuchcompensation?Theseissuesarethefocusofthispaper,whichaddressesthreerelatedquestionsregardingtheAustralianlabourmarket:

1. Howcanweapproximatethenumberofgenuinelyflexiblecasualemployees?2. Whatarethecharacteristicsofworkwhereemployeesare,orarenot,likelytobe

genuinelyflexiblecasualemployees?3. Howmanyemployeesarecompensatedforthedisutilityofcasualemployment?

Wereferto‘employeeswithoutleaveentitlements’bytheshorthandterm‘leave-deprivedemployees’.Theiropposite—employeeswithleaveentitlements—werefertoas‘leave-entitledemployees’.Theabsenceofanentitlementtoleaveisnotactuallywhatdefinesacasualemployeeanyway.Itwasonlyin2010,withthepassageoftheFairWorkAct,thatAustralianemployeesreceivedageneralrighttoannualandsickleave.Priortothat,leaveentitlementswereonlycontainedinawards,fromwhichcasualloadingsalsoemerged.TheFederalCourtofAustraliaconfirmedin2011thatthetermcasualemployeeembraces‘anemployeewhoworksonlyondemandbytheemployer’andthat‘theessenceofcasualness

1WorkPacPtyLtdvSkene[2018]FCAFC131;WorkPacPtyLtdvRossato[2020]FCAFC84.

5

istheabsenceofafirmadvancecommitmentastothedurationoftheemployee’semploymentorthedays(orhours)theemployeewillwork’.2Thiswasnotnew;itwasalsoessentiallythepositioninanearliercase.3Itisclearthatmanyemployeesarenotcasualinthesenseoflackinganadvancecommitmentfromthefirmtothedurationofemployment(asspecifiedbytheFederalCourtin2011).Manycasualworkersareamongstthelowestpaidworkers,andthecasualloadingdoesnotactuallyguaranteethemahigherhourlyrateofpay.Hencearecentstudyinaleadinginternationaljournalfoundthat,inAustralia,low-wagecasualsreceivedawage‘penalty’,giventheirskills,experienceandthelike,eventhoughthecasualloadingshouldhavehadtheoppositeeffect,thatisitshouldhaveledtotheirreceivingawage‘premium’(LaßandWooden2019).Thismayreflectillegalunderpaymentbysomeemployerswhodeclinetopaythecasualloading.Ortheymaybelegallypaidtheloadingbutbeplacedonalowerbasepay(perhapsnomorethantheawardrate)byemployersthantheyotherwisewouldbe.Thelatterisconsistentwith,butnotprovenby,thefactthat(amongstnon-managerialadultemployees)38%ofemployer-described‘casuals’arepaidonlytheawardrate,whilethisisthecaseforjust12%ofotheremployees(AustralianBureauofStatistics6306.0).Ifweaimtoestimatethenumberofnarrowly-definedcasuals,itisfirstnecessarytospecifythatdefinition.Casualemployeesaremeanttodemonstrate‘numericalflexibility’(Legge1995),suchthattheemployercanreadilydeploythemwhenever,andatwhatevertimes,suitstheneedsoftheemployer.Thatis,theycanbehiredanddismissedatshortnotice,andusedforafewhoursormanyhoursinanyparticularweek.Acasual’semploymentrelationshipwiththeemployeronlylastsforthedurationoftheshift.TheFederalCourtdecisionsmentionedabovepointedtotheabsenceoffirmadvancecommitmenttocontinuingandindefinitework.Informationonthisisnotsomethingthatis,orcanbe,collectedaboutindividualsthroughABSsurveys,asitissomethingtobeassessedinlightofthecircumstancesofthoseindividuals.LackingspecificABSdataonwhethertheemployeeworksonlyondemandbytheemployerandhasnocommitmentfromtheemployerastothedurationorhoursofwork,weseethekeyquantifiablecharacteristicsofgenuinelyflexiblecasualemploymentasbeing:• workthatisshort-term;• workthatisintermittentor,atleast,variable;and• employmentthatlacksentitlementtoannualorsickleave.Becauseoftheinabilitytopreciselydefine‘genuinelyflexible’casualsusingABSstatistics,werefertovaryingdefinitionsofcasualsthattakeaccountoftheavailableABSdata,andthatdifferaccordingtothestrictnessofthedefinitions.Thestrictestdefinitionweusedefinesthe‘mostnarrowly-definedcasuals’asworkerswho:• havebeenwiththeemployerforlessthantwelvemonths,andwhodonotexpecttobe

withsameemployerintwelvemonthstime(thatis,engagedinshort-termwork);and• didnothavethesamehoursandpayfromweektoweek(thatis,engagedin

intermittentorvariablework),orareonstandby;and• donothaveleaveentitlements;and

2Williamsv.MacMahonMiningServicesPtyLtd[2010]FCA13213HamzyvTriconInternationalRestaurantstradingasKFC(2001)115FCR78

6

• receivethecasualloading.Aproblemwiththisdefinitionisthatreceiptofthecasualloadingisnotacharacteristicacceptedbythecourtsasbeingadefiningelementofbeingacasual,andnon-paymentofthecasualloadingmayreflectotherfactorssuchasunderpaymentoranactualwagewellabovetheawardminimum(discussedlater).Accordingly,thedefinitionwemostcommonlyuseexcludesthelastcriterion.Thusa‘narrowly-definedcasual’isaworkerwho:• hasbeenwiththeemployerforlessthantwelvemonths,andwhodoesnotexpecttobe

withsameemployerintwelvemonthstime(thatis,engagedinshort-termwork);and• doesnothavethesamehoursandpayfromweektoweek(thatis,engagedin

intermittentorvariablework),orisonstandby;and• doesnothaveleaveentitlements.So,centraltotheconceptofa‘narrowly-definedcasual’isthattheemployee’srelationshipwiththeemployerisgenuinelycasual—theemployeedoesnothavealong-termrelationshipwiththeemployer.Theemployeeisnothiredonaregularorpredictablebasis;instead,theyarehiredondemandbytheemployer.Wedonotmakereceiptofthecasualloadingacriterionforbeingdefinedasacasual,becausethisisamatterofemploymentpaypolicy,notthecharacterofemploymentitself.Agenuinelycasualemployeemaymissoutonthecasualloading,eitherbecausetheemployerwantstopaybelowtheawardminimumandgetsawaywithit,orpayssofarabovetheawardwagethatitpositsthatpaymentofaseparatecasualloadingisnotnecessary.Theformerislikelytobethereasonamongstlow-paidworkers(somethingreinforcedbythefindingofthestudybyLaßandWooden(2019)mentionedabove),thelatteramongsthigh-paidworkers.Wealsomakeuseoftwoother,broaderdefinitionsthatalternativelyexcludepartoftheabovecriteria.Thusa‘broadly-definedcasual(shorttermexpected)’issomeonewho:• didnotexpecttobewithsameemployerintwelvemonthstime;and• didnothaveleaveentitlements.Likewise,a‘broadly-definedcasual(shorttermexperienced)’issomeonewho:• hadbeenwiththeemployerforlessthantwelvemonths;and• didnothaveleaveentitlements.Finally,a‘broadly-definedcasual(variablework)’issomeonewho:• didnothavethesamehoursandpayfromweektoweek(thatis,engagedin

intermittentorvariablework),orisonstandby;and• didnothaveleaveentitlements.Asisinherentinthenatureofthesedefinitions,alotmorepeoplewillbecategorisedascoveredbythevarious‘broad’definitionsthanbythe‘narrow’definitions.Thedefinitionthatprobablycomesclosesttotheconceptof‘genuinelyflexible’casualsisthatof‘narrowly-definedcasuals’,asittakesaccountofallthreefactors.However,theactualnumberwhowouldmeetthedefinitionofcasualimpliedthroughSkeneorRossatowouldprobablybesomewherebetweenitandoneofthe‘broadly-definedcasual’definitions.Thatisbecausesomeworkerswhoseworkinghoursdonotvaryfromweektoweekmightstillbeclassedascasuals.

7

DataandmethodMosttablesheremakeuseofunpublisheddataprovidedonrequestbytheABS.BecausetheABSnolongercollectsdataoncasualloadings,itisnecessarytouseolderdatafromtheABStogeneratetheanswerstothequestionsaskedhere.ThemostrecentsurveyinwhichABSaskedthoroughquestionsaboutcasualloadingsandtheissuesidentifiedabovewastheNovember2012WorkingTimeArrangements(WTA)survey(CatNo6342.0).However,therearetwoissueswithusingthesedata.First,itisratherdated.Second,itisbasedonasurvey(essentiallyasupplementtothemonthlylabourforcesurvey)andsoissubjecttosamplingerror.Thisisparticularlyimportantwhencellsizesaresmaller,forwhichtherelativesamplingerrorofestimatescanbelarge.Wedealwithboththeseproblemsbyutilisingmultiplesurveysoverseveralyears.ThedataformosttablescomefromunpublisheddatasuppliedbytheABSfromrelatedsurveysundertakeninNovember2006(theWTAsurvey),ApriltoJuly2007(theSurveyofEmploymentArrangementsandSuperannuation),andNovember2009(theWTAsurvey),aswellasNovember2012.Seasonalpatternsmayinfluencedifferencesbetween2007andotheryears,butnotbetweenthethreeWTAsurveys.Inasmallnumberofinstances,thedataarerestrictedtocollectionsinthreeofthoseyears(2006,2009and2012)oreventwo(2009and2012).Thereare,however,sometablesforwhichdataarealsoavailablefromtheAugustEmployeeEarnings,BenefitsandTradeUnionMembership(EEBTUM)surveyin2009,2010,2011,2012and2013,andsowehaveaccessedunpublisheddatafromthissourceforthoseyearsaswell.Thismethoddealswiththesecondproblembyeffectivelymultiplyingthesamplesizeseveraltimesover(inthemajorityofinstances,quadruplingit).Showingtheseparateresponsesforeachsurvey,aswellastheaverageresponsesfromallthesurveys,alsoenablesustoseehowstabletheresultsarebetweensurveys,whichtellsushowrobustthefindingsarelikelytobe.Thismethodalsodealswiththefirstproblem,byenablingustoseewhetheranytrendovertimecanbeobserved.Iftheresultsarestableovertheperiodconcerned(whichlastedforsevenyears),thenasimilarlevelofstabilitycouldbeexpectedintheperiodsincethen(alsosevenyears)unlessthereissometheoreticalreasontobelievethatanexternalshockhaschangedtherelevantcircumstances.Asitis,thetablesbelowwillindicatethatmostoftheresultsdoappeartobestableovertime,andmovewithinafairlynarrowband,althoughnoteismadeofthoseresultswheretheremightbesometimetrendevident.Anotableproportionofpeople,whenaskedwhethertheyreceivedthecasualloading,repliedthattheydidnotknow.Thisproportionaveraged15.2%ofleave-deprivedworkersintheWTA/SEASsurveysand18.6percentintheEBTUsurveys.Forsomeitems,wedivideresponsestothequestionaboutreceiptoftheloadingintothethreecategoriesusedbytheABS—ineffect‘yes’,‘no’and‘don’tknow’.Theproportionofleave-deprivedemployeeswhosaidtheydidreceivecasualloadingvariedwithina1.7percentagepointsacrosstheninesurveysconcerned,whereastherangewithinwhichthosewhosaidtheydidnotreceivealoadingvariedwas7.5percentagepoints,similartothe7.6percentagepoint

8

rangeforthe‘don’tknow’response.Itthusappearedthatthevariationintheproportionof‘don’tknows’morecloselymatchedthevariationintheproportionof‘nos’.Indeed,thecorrelationbetween‘no’and‘don’tknow’acrosstheninesurveyswasveryhighatr=-.97,whereasthecorrelationbetween‘yes’and‘don’tknow’wasnon-significant(r=.16).Thisrelationshipbetween‘don’tknow’and‘no’suggeststhatthemajorityofpeoplewhosaidtheydidnotknowaboutthecasualloadingprobablydidnotreceiveit.Inthelastpartofthepaper,then,wedivideleave-deprivedintotwocategories:thosewhoreportedreceivingtheloading(‘yes’),andthosewhodidnotreportreceivingtheloading(‘no’and‘don’tknow’).Wecallthesetwogroups‘compensated’and‘uncompensated’.(Hence,those‘narrowly-definedcasuals’whodonotreceivethecasualloadingarereferredtoinsometablesinthispaperas‘uncompensatednarrowly-definedcasuals’.)Italsomakesintuitivesensetoinferamajorityofthosewhodidnotknowwhethertheyreceivedcasualloadingdidnot,infact,receivecasualloading.Mostworkerswouldbeexpectedtochecktheirpayslipsatleastonceinawhile,andacasualloadingwouldberecordedonthepayslip.Workerswhosawitontheirpayslipwouldreportit,whenasked,totheABS.Someofthosewhodidnotseeitontheirpayslip,anddidnotnoticeitsabsence,maytelltheABSthattheydidnotknow.Itisabreachofindustriallawnottoprovideapayslip,andsoanemployerwhodoesnotprovidepayslipswouldalsohaveafairlyhighprobabilityofnotabidingbyotherindustrialrequirementssuchasprovidingacasualloading.Thatsaid,notevery‘don’tknow’willbea‘no’:somerespondents,whoanswerthelabourforcesurveyonbehalfofanotherhouseholdmember,simplywillnotknowifthatpersonreceivesaloading.Thismethodofassigning‘don’tknow’to‘no’isconsistentwithABSpracticeinotherseries,forexampletradeunionmembers(someonewhosays‘don’tknow’isconsideredanon-member)andindeedworkerswithleaveentitlements(someonewhosays‘don’tknow’isconsideredaworkerwithoutthatleaveentitlement,accountingforabout3%ofallemployeesorabout12%ofleave-deprivedemployees).Thereisanotherproblemthatmayleavetoanoverstatementofthenumberofleave-deprivedworkers.TheABSdataisbasedonresponsestothequestion‘Does[your/name’s]employerprovide[you/him/her]withpaidsickleave?’and‘Does[your/name’s]employerprovide[you/him/her]withpaidholidayleave?’(questionsareaskedaboutboththerespondentandotherhouseholdmembers).Someemployeesinpermanentjobshavenotaccruedleaveuntiltheyhavebeeninthejobforacertainperiod,andpeopleinsuchsituationsmighthaveanswered‘no’tooneorbothofthesequestions,eventhoughtheywouldultimatelybeentitledtoitintheirjob.Thiswouldonlyaffectpeoplewhohadbeenintheirjobforashortperiodandisnotlikelytobelargeintotal. Wealsodistinguish,laterinthepaper,between‘narrowly-definedcasuals’(leave-deprivedemployeeswhomeetthedefinitionabove,thatistheyhavebeenwiththeemployerforlessthantwelvemonths,donotexpecttobewithsameemployerintwelvemonthstime,andhavevariablepayandhours),and‘unsubstantiatedcasuals’(leave-deprivedemployeeswhodonotmeetthosecriteria).Tobeclassedasanarrowly-definedcasualbothhoursandpayhavetovary:variablepaybutnothourscouldreflecttheeffectofbonuses,tipsorpayment-by-resultsforwagedemployees;whilevariablehoursbutnotpaycouldreflectthe

9

conditionsofsalariedemployeesworkingtoachieveaspecificoutput,regardlessofhoursworked.Inmosttables,thefirstdatacolumnscontainthepercentagesrelevanttotheyearsshown(say,2006,2007,2009and2012).Thepenultimatecolumnshowstheaveragepercentageacrossthoseyears.Thedatacolumnonthefurthestrightcontainstheaveragenumberofemployeesrepresentedbythatpercentage.Theratiosimpliedinthatcolumnareisusuallyverycloseto,butnotidenticalto,thepreviouscolumn,asoneiscalculatedastheaverageofthenumbersofemployeesandtheotheristheaverageofpercentages,andthetwowillnotexactlyalignunlessthetotalnumberofemployeesisidenticaleachyear.Insomecases,weareabletoupdateourestimateswithpublisheddatafromtheABSfor2016orlater.Theseestimates,specifiedinthetext,arealittlelargerthanthosefromtheearlierdata,becauseofgrowthinthelabourforce,eventhoughtheproportionofleave-deprivedemployeesamongstallemployeeshasbeenfairlystableovermostofthepasttwodecades.Insomeothercases,weprojectfromtheearlierdatato2016,applyingtheratioscalculatedthroughtheearlierdatatotheaggregateestimatesofleave-deprivedemployeespublishedbytheABSforlateryears.Compensatedanduncompensatedleave-deprivedworkers

Tables1and2showresponsesbyleave-deprivedemployeestothequestiononwhethertheyreceiveacasualloading.Table1usesdatafromWTSandSEAS,whileTable2usesdatafromEEBTUM.Inbothsources,slightlybelowhalf(justunder49%)ofleave-deprivedemployeesreceivetheloading.Theresultisveryconsistent:innoneoftheninesurveysdoesamajorityofleave-deprivedemployeesreceivetheloading.Theproportionofleave-deprivedemployeeswhoknowtheydonotreceivetheloadingis33%inEEBTUMand36%inWTS/SEAS,whilethosewhodidnotknowtheyreceivedtheloadingis15%inWTS/SEASand19%inEEBTUM.InbothWTS/SEASandEEBTUM,51%ofleave-deprivedemployeesdonotreportreceivingtheloading.Table1:Compensationofleave-deprivedworkers,WTSandSEAS.

Whetherreceivedcasualloadingaspartofpayinmainjob 2006 2007 2009 2012

allyearsaverage

%

averageno.of

employees(‘000)

Receivedcasualloading 48.1% 47.8% 49.1% 49.0% 48.5% 958.9Didnotreceivecasualloading 38.7% 36.3% 35.9% 34.5% 36.3% 717.6Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading 13.2% 15.9% 15.1% 16.6% 15.2% 301.5Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,978.0Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.

10

Table2:Compensationofleave-deprivedworkers,EEBTUM.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

allyearsaverage

%

averageno.of

employees(‘000)

Receivedcasualloading 48.2% 48.9% 49.5% 49.1% 47.8% 48.7% 1,062.1Didnotreceivecasualloading 35.1% 34.0% 31.2% 32.0% 31.4% 32.7% 713.5Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading 16.8% 17.2% 19.4% 18.9% 20.8% 18.6% 406.4Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2,182.0Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromEEBTUM.Asexplainedintheprecedingsection,itisplausiblethatthemajorityofthosewhodidnotknowwhethertheyreceivedcasualloadingdidnot,infact,receivecasualloading.Reasonsforthelackofcompensationmayvary.Broadlyspeaking,therearetworeasonswhyaworkermaynotreceiveacasualloading.Onereasonisthattheemployeeissimplypaidanundifferentiated‘allup’ratethatsignificantlyexceedstheirlegalminimumrateofpaybutdoesnotspecificallyidentifyacasualloading.Whetherthisisanunderpaymentmaydependonthecircumstancesofthecase.Thesecondreasonisthatsomeworkerssimplymaybedemonstrablyunderpaid.Non-compliancewithindustrialrequirementsisasignificantproblem.Anotherstudy(Peetz2017)referredtothesubstantialnumbersofestablishmentsinretailandhospitalityfoundtonotbecomplyingwithawardsinvariousauditsduringthe2010-2014period.Thatstudyroughlyestimated,forotherpurposes,thatthataroundasixthofworkersinretailandathirdofworkersinretailandhospitalitymayhavenotreceivedpenaltyratestowhichtheywereentitled.Theseindustriesareamongsttheworstforawardbreaches.Sounlawfulunderpaymentswouldlikelyaccountforasignificantpartoftheabovegroupnotreceivingcasualloading,butprobablynotallofit.PreviousandexpecteddurationwiththeemployerPartoftheconceptofa‘genuinelyflexible’casualisthattheemployeedoesnothavealong-termrelationshipwiththeemployer—itisacasualrelationship.Byimplication,anemployeewhohasbeenwiththeemployerformorethanayear,orwhoexpectsinfuturetobewiththeemployerformorethananotheryear,wouldnotbeagenuinelyflexiblecasual.InTables3and4,welookatforhowlongleave-deprivedworkers(thecategoryofworkerstypicallyinterpretedasbeing‘casuals’)haveactuallybeenwiththeemployer.Itturnsoutthatthemajorityofleave-deprivedemployeeshavebeenwiththeemployerformorethanayear.InTable3,derivedfromWTSandSEAS,57percentofleave-deprivedemployeeshadbeenwiththeemployerforayearormore.Theproportiondidnotshowanyupwardsordownwardstrendoverthe2006-2012period.Indeed,41percenthadbeenwiththeemployerfortwoyearsormore—almostasmanyastheproportionwhosejobdurationislessthanayear.Wedonothavefulljobdurationdatafor2007,butthebottompartofthetablehasdatafordifferentjobdurationrangesbeyond2yearsfortheother

11

yearsandrevealsthat,infact,anaverageof17percentofleave-deprivedemployees(almost300,000workers)hadbeenwiththeiremployerforfiveyearsormore,and2percent(over40,000workers)hadbeenwiththeemployerfor20yearsormore.Whatevertermisusedtodescribethose340,000employees’relationshipwiththeemployer,itcouldhardlybedescribedas‘casual’.Table4showsthedatafromtheEEBTUMsurveys,whichusedmorerestrictiveranges,butagainitrevealsamajorityofleave-deprivedemployeeshadacompletedjobdurationofayearormore.Indeed,61%ofleave-deprivedemployeesinthosesurveyshadbeenwiththeemployerforayearormore.Again,receiptoftheloadingdidnotmakeagreatdifference.Onaverage,intheETSandSEASdata,thosewithouttheloadingweremorelikelythanthosewiththeloadingtohaveshortercompletedjobduration,butthiswasnotthecaseintwoofthefouryears.AnevensmallerdifferencewasapparentintheEEBTUMdata,butitwasalsotheoppositeintwoofthefiveyears.Theremayhavebeenaslightalbeituneventrendtowardslongerjobdurationforleave-deprivedemployeesintheWTSandSEASdata,butthiswasnotatallevidentintheEEBTUMdata,andsoweconcludenooveralltrendovertime.Arelatedandnotablepointfromtables3and4isthatmanyleave-deprivedworkerswithdurationwiththeemployerofoverayeardidnotreceivethecasualloading.InEEBTUM,forexample,lessthanhalfofsuchworkerssaidtheyreceivedtheloading.TheABSpublisheddataonjobdurationofleave-deprivedandleave-entitledemployeesfromthe2016CharacteristicsofEmploymentsurvey.Inthat,41.4%ofleave-deprivedworkers(1.02million)hadajobdurationoflessthan12months,and58.6%(1.44million)haddurationofayearormore.Thatis,thenumberof‘broadly-definedcasuals(short-termexperience)’,at1.02million,was41.4%ofleave-deprivedworkersor10.4%ofallemployees.Fromtheearlierdata(bothWTS/SEASandEEBTUMseries),wecanestimatethatonly47%of‘broadly-definedcasual(short-termexperience)’employeesreceivedthecasualloading.

12

Table3:Jobduration,leave-deprivedemployees,WTSandSEAS.

2006 2007 2009 2012allyearsaverage

averageno.of

employees(‘000)

Receivedcasualloading Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 43.3% 41.7% 39.4% 38.8% 40.8% 380.8Durationofcurrentmainjob1tolessthan2years 15.1% 17.3% 16.6% 16.5% 16.4% 152.2Durationofcurrentmainjob2yearsormore 41.6% 40.9% 43.9% 44.7% 42.8% 410.0

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Didnotreceivecasualloading Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 41.8% 45.4% 39.2% 43.0% 42.3% 289.7Durationofcurrentmainjob1tolessthan2years 16.2% 15.7% 16.4% 14.4% 15.7% 110.0Durationofcurrentmainjob2yearsormore 42.0% 38.9% 44.4% 42.7% 42.0% 301.8

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 54.5% 54.1% 47.1% 46.8% 50.6% 142.2Durationofcurrentmainjob1tolessthan2years 14.7% 17.4% 19.0% 15.6% 16.7% 48.0Durationofcurrentmainjob2yearsormore 30.8% 28.5% 33.9% 37.6% 32.7% 100.0

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Allleave-deprivedworkers Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 44.2% 45.0% 40.5% 41.5% 42.8% 812.7Durationofcurrentmainjob1tolessthan2years 15.5% 16.8% 16.9% 15.6% 16.2% 310.2Durationofcurrentmainjob2yearsormore 40.3% 38.2% 42.6% 42.8% 41.0% 811.9

-Durationofcurrentmainjob2tolessthan5years 23.1% 25.6% 25.2% 24.6%

-Durationofcurrentmainjob5tolessthan20years 15.1% 14.9% 15.5% 15.2% -Durationofcurrentmain

job20yearsormore 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.

13

Table4:Jobduration,leave-deprivedemployees,EEBTUM.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

allyearsaverage

%

averageno.of

employees(‘000)

Receivedcasualloading Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 38.9% 38.5% 39.8% 39.4% 38.2% 39.0% 397.0Durationofcurrentmainjob1yearormore 61.1% 61.5% 60.2% 60.6% 61.8% 61.0% 623.2 Didnotreceivecasualloading Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 38.0% 39.0% 41.5% 39.6% 38.1% 39.2% 282.6Durationofcurrentmainjob1yearormore 62.0% 61.0% 58.5% 60.4% 61.9% 60.8% 460.8 Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 44.8% 49.1% 48.8% 46.7% 44.9% 46.8% 159.0Durationofcurrentmainjob1yearormore 55.2% 50.9% 51.2% 53.3% 55.1% 53.2% 196.0 Total Durationofcurrentmainjoblessthan1year 39.6% 40.5% 42.1% 40.9% 39.6% 40.5% 838.7Durationofcurrentmainjob1yearormore 60.4% 59.5% 57.9% 59.1% 60.4% 59.5% 1,280.0Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromEEBTUM.Thedataalsodemonstratedthatmostleave-deprivedworkersexpectedtostillbewiththesameemployerin12monthstime.ThisisshowninTables5and6.Inbothsources,overthreequartersofleave-deprivedemployeesexpectthis:intheWTS/SEASdatatheestimateis78%(Table5),andintheEEBTUMdataitis80%(Table6).Thereisnotrendovertimevisibleineitherdatasource.Noristheremuchdifferencebetweenthosewhoreceive,anddonotreceive,thecasualloading.Ifanything,thosewhoreceivetheloadingareslightlymorelikelytoexpecttobewiththeemployerforayearorover,butthedifferenceisverysmallandinconsistent.ABSdatafromthe2016CharacteristicsofEmploymentsurveyindicatedthatonly18.8%ofleave-deprivedworkers(460,000)didnotexpecttobewiththeemployerinayear,while81.2%(2.00million)expectedtobethereforoverayear.Thatis,thenumberof‘broadly-definedcasuals(short-termexperienced)’isestimatedat460,000in2016,whichwas18.8%ofleave-deprivedemployeesor4.7%ofallemployees.Thenumberof‘genuinelyflexible’casualswouldbelessthanthis,asthisnumberdoesnottakeaccountofdataontheshortactualdurationofemploymentorvariablehoursorbeingonstandbyorotherreasonsforexpectingshorttenure(e.g.anticipatingretirementormovingcity).Fromtheearlierdata,

14

wecanestimatethatonlyaround46to48%of‘broadly-definedcasuals(short-termexperienced)’receivedthecasualloading,whichwouldlikelybeequivalentto210-220,000employees.Table5:Expectedjobtenure,leave-deprivedemployees,WTSandSEAS.


averageno.ofemployees(‘000)

Receivedcasualloading Expectstobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 78.5% 74.3% 79.5% 80.7% 78.3% 684.0Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 21.5% 25.7% 20.5% 19.3% 21.7% 187.7

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 871.6Didnotreceivecasualloading Expectstobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 76.8% 73.9% 78.9% 80.7% 77.6% 537.5Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 23.2% 26.1% 21.1% 19.3% 22.4% 162.4

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 699.9Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading Expectstobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 74.8% 73.4% 79.7% 79.5% 76.8% 178.9Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 25.2% 26.6% 20.3% 20.5% 23.2% 60.1

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 239.1Total Expectstobeworkingfor

employer/inbusinessin12monthstime 77.3% 74.0% 79.3% 80.5% 77.8% 1,400.4

Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 22.7% 26.0% 20.7% 19.5% 22.2% 410.2

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,810.6Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.

15

Table6:Expectedjobtenure,leave-deprivedemployees,EEBTUM.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013allyearsaverage

averageno.of

employees(‘000)

Receivedcasualloading Expectstobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 80.5% 79.4% 80.0% 81.4% 80.9% 80.4% 854.5Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 19.5% 20.6% 20.0% 18.6% 19.1% 19.6% 207.6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,062.1Didnotreceivecasualloading Expectstobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 80.4% 79.8% 79.5% 80.2% 80.9% 80.2% 572.0Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 19.6% 20.2% 20.5% 19.8% 19.1% 19.8% 141.5

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 713.5Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading Expectstobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 81.1% 77.5% 77.1% 82.8% 81.6% 80.0% 325.5Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 18.9% 22.5% 22.9% 17.2% 18.4% 20.0% 81.0

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 406.4Totalleave-deprivedemployees Expectstobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 80.6% 79.2% 79.3% 81.3% 81.1% 80.3% 1,752.0Doesnotexpecttobeworkingforemployer/inbusinessin12monthstime 19.4% 20.8% 20.7% 18.7% 18.9% 19.7% 430.0

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2,182.0Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromEEBTUM.Ourparticularinterestisinpeoplewhobothhaveonlybeeninthejobfor12monthsanddonotexpecttobewiththeemployerin12monthstime.Tables3to6onlyrelatetooneofthosetwocriteria.Thereis,however,anon-randomoverlapbetweenthetwo.QuarterlylabourforcedatafromAugust2020indicatethat,ofthe1.1millionemployedpersons(notjustleave-deprivedemployees)whodonotexpecttobewithcurrentemployerorbusinessin12months,some317,100(29%)hadonlybeenwiththeircurrentemployerorbusinessforfewerthan12months.Thisrepresents2.5%ofallemployees.Still,therecanbemany

16

reasonswhypeopleexpecttonotbeinthesamejob,andonly59,500saidthatthiswasbecausetheywereinaseasonal,temporary,fixedcontractorcasualjob.VariablehoursandstandbyThemajorityofleave-deprivedemployeesdidnothavevariablehoursorpayandwerenotoncallorstandby(Table7).Onaverage,theWTSandSEASdatabetween2006and2012showthatonly46.5%ofleave-deprivedworkershadvaryinghoursandpay,orwererequiredtobeonstandby.Therewasaslightupwardtrendinthisproportion—from44.4%in2006to48.7%in2012,andalthoughtheseestimatesaresubjecttosamplingerror,itisplausiblethatifthistrendcontinuedthanby2020,leave-deprivedworkerswouldbefairlyevenlysplitbetweenthosewhosehoursvaried(orwhowereonstandby)andthosewhowereneitheronvariablehoursnotstandby.Table7:Variablehoursorleave-deprivedstatusofleave-deprivedemployees.



Total Hoursandpayvariedweeklyorwasusuallyrequiredtobeon-callorstandby 44.4% 45.6% 47.1% 48.7% 46.5% 919.7Hoursorpaydidnotvaryweeklyandwasnotrequiredtobeon-callorstandby 55.6% 54.4% 52.9% 51.3% 53.5% 1,058.3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,978.0Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.Uncompensatedleave-deprivedworkersappearedlesslikelythantheircompensatedcounterpartstohavevariablehoursorbeonstandby(Table8).Itisunknownwhetherthiswasbecausevariablehoursoruseofstandbywaslesscommonwhereworkerswereon‘allup’rates,orwhethertheywerelesscommonwheretheywerebeingdemonstrablyunderpaid.

17

Table8:Variablehoursorleave-deprivedstatusofleave-deprivedemployees,bywhetherreceivedcasualloading.



Compensated Hoursandpayvariedweeklyorwasusuallyrequiredtobeon-callorstandby 48.7% 49.7% 52.7% 52.5% 50.9% 488.8Hoursorpaydidnotvaryweeklyandwasnotrequiredtobeon-callorstandby 51.3% 50.3% 47.3% 47.5% 49.1% 470.2Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 958.9Uncompensated Hoursandpayvariedweeklyorwasusuallyrequiredtobeon-callorstandby 40.8% 40.9% 41.9% 43.1% 41.7%

299.0

Hoursorpaydidnotvaryweeklyandwasnotrequiredtobeon-callorstandby 59.2% 59.1% 58.1% 56.9% 58.3%

418.6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 717.6Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.Thelowincidenceofvariablehoursorstandbystatusisnotsurprisinginthecontextofthehoursworkedbyleave-deprivedemployees.InMay2020,onethird(33.4%)ofleave-deprivedemployeeswereemployedfull-time.Thesetwotablesindicatethatthenumberof‘broadly-defined(variablehours)casuals’islikelytobearoundonly47%ofleave-deprivedworkers.Theproportionof‘genuinelyflexible’casualswouldbelessthanthisestimate,asitdoesnottakeaccountofdataontheshortactualorexpecteddurationofemployment.Projectedto2016,thiswouldbeequivalenttoaround1.15millionemployees,orabout11.7%ofallemployees.OtherflexibilitiesorcontrolsInthenextsub-sections,weconsiderhowotheraspectsof‘flexibility’or‘control’relatetoleave-deprivedemployees.ThesupportingtablesarecontainedintheAppendix.Westartwithchoiceofworkdays.ChoiceofworkdaysThemajorityofleave-deprivedworkersdidnothaveanysayondaysonwhichtheyworked(AppendixTableA1).Thisprovideslittleevidencetosupporttheideathatcasualisedemploymentpromotesflexibilitythatbenefitstheemployee.Therewasnoclearpatternof

18

increaseordecreaseovertimeinthischaracteristic,withtheaveragesoverthefouryearssimilartotheproportionsinthefirstyear.Thisdidnotvarymuchbywhetheremployeeswerecompensatedornot.Inoneyear(2006)thosewhoreceivedtheloadinghadaslightlylowerincidenceofhavingsomesayontheirdaysworked,butintheotherthreeyears(andintheaverage)thosewhoreceivedtheloadinghadaslightlyhighercapacitytochoosetheirworkdays.GuaranteedminimumhoursThemajorityofleave-deprivedworkerswerenotguaranteedminimumworkinghours(AppendixTableA2).Workersreceivingthecasualloadingwereslightlylesslikelytohaveaguaranteeovertheirworkinghours.Thesedatawereonlyavailablefor2009and2012,buttheestimatesdidnotdiffermuchbetweenthosetwoyears.WedonothavedataforthatitemforearlieryearsbuttheABScouldprovideestimatesforeachyearofwhatproportionofworkers,whosehoursvariedweekly,alsohadguaranteedhours(foundinAppendixTableA3).Itshowsthataroundsevententhsofworkerswithvariablehoursdidnothaveanyguaranteeofminimumweeklyhours.Theproportionwhohadnosuchguaranteeroseslightlyoverthatperiod.Therewasnodifferencebyreceiptofthecasualloading:amongcompensatedworkerswhowereleave-deprived,28.9percenthadaminimumhoursguaranteeandamongstsuchworkerswhowerenotcompensatedbythecasualloading,28.8percenthadaminimumhoursguarantee.Amongstleave-deprivedworkerswithvariablehours(AppendixTableA3),anaverageofonly29percenthadaguaranteeofminimumhours.Bycontrast,amongleave-entitledworkerswithvariablehours,88percenthadaguaranteeofminimumweeklyhours.Lookedatanotherway,outofallleave-deprivedworkers,some27percenthadbothvariablehoursandnoguaranteeofhours,butoutofallleave-entitledworkers,only2percenthadbothvariablehoursandnoguaranteeofhours.Thatis,leave-deprivedworkersweremorethan10timesaslikelytohavebothvariablehoursandnoguaranteeofhours.Butitwasthelatter,thatnottheformer,thatmostlydrovethisdifference.Leave-deprivedworkerswere1.8timesmorelikelythanleave-entitledworkerstohavevariablehoursorbeonstandby,butleave-deprivedworkerswithvariablehourswere6.1timesmorelikelythanleave-entitledworkerswithvariablehourstohavenoguaranteeofminimumhours.Thedifferenceinpower(asindicatedbythedifferentaccesstominimumhoursguarantees)betweenleave-entitledandleave-deprivedworkerswasmuchstrongerherethanthedifferenceinflexibilityrequirements(asindicatedbythedifferenceinvariablehours).AbilitytochooseholidaysAmajorityofleave-deprivedworkerscouldchoosewhentotaketheirholidays.ThiswasevidentregardlessofwhetherwetookthedatafromWTSandSEAS(AppendixTableA4)orEEBTUM(AppendixTableA5).Theabilitytochoosewhentotakeholidayswasonlytenpercentagepointsloweramongstleave-deprivedemployeesthanamongstleave-entitled

19

employees.Averagedacrosstheseries,thiswasacomparisonbetweenestimatesof66%and76%forleave-deprivedandleave-entitledemployeesrespectivelyinWTSandSEAS,orbetween65%and75%intheEEBTUMseries.Therewasnoconsistentpatternofchangeovertime,andthedifferencesbetweenworkersinreceipt,andnotinreceipt,ofthecasualloadingwereminimal.Narrowly-definedcasualsandthefourcategoriesofleave-deprivedemployeesItisapparentfromtheabovethatmanyleave-deprivedemployeescannotbedescribedasgenuinelyflexiblecasuals.Amajorityhavebeenwiththeemployerforayearormore.Amajorityexpecttobewiththesameemployerinayear’stime.Halformoredonothavevariableworkinghoursandarenotrequiredtobeonstandby.Soitisdesirabletogetascloseaswecantoidentifyingwhoarethegenuinelyflexiblecasualemployees.Aspreviouslyexplained,fromtheseABSdataweseenarrowly-definedcasualsasemployeeswho:• havebeenwiththeemployerforlessthantwelvemonths,andwhodonotexpecttobe

withsameemployerintwelvemonthstime(thatis,engagedinshort-termwork);and• didnothavethesamehoursandpayfromweektoweek(thatis,engagedin

intermittentorvariablework),orisonstandby;and• donothaveleaveentitlements.Bythesecriteria,wedivideleave-deprivedemployeesinto‘narrowly-definedcasuals’and‘unsubstantiatedcasuals’.Previously,wealsodividedleave-deprivedemployeesintothosewhodidanddidnotreceivethecasualloading(‘compensated’v‘uncompensated’).Puttingthesetwocriteriatogetherenablesustocreateafour-waycategorisationofleave-deprivedemployees:• compensatednarrowly-definedcasuals,whomeetthecriteriaforbeingacasual

specifiedabove(intermsofjobduration,expectedtenure,andvariabilityofhours)andwhoareinreceiptofthecasualloading;

• uncompensatednarrowly-definedcasuals,whomeetthecriteriaforbeinganarrowly-definedcasualbutdonotreceivethecasualloadingordonotknowiftheyreceiveit(which,aswaspointedoutearlier,wouldmostlycomprisepeoplewhodonotreceivetheloading);

• compensatedunsubstantiatedcasuals,leave-deprivedemployeeswhoarenotnarrowly-definedcasualsbutwhoreceivethecasualloading;and

• uncompensatedunsubstantiatedcasuals,leave-deprivedemployeeswhoarenotnarrowly-definedcasualsandwhodonotreceivethecasualloading.

Table9revealshowmanyleave-entitledemployeesappearedineachofthesefourcategories,aswellasineachofthedichotomouscategories(narrowly-definedvunsubstantiatedandcompensatedvuncompensated).Thetophalfofthetableexpressesthenumbersineachcategoryasaproportionofthenumberofallemployees,andthebottomhalfexpressesitasaproportionofthenumberofleave-deprivedemployees.Theproportionsarecalculatedforeachyearandshowninthetable,alongwiththeaveragesof

20

thoseproportions.Theaveragenumbersofpeopleineachofthosecategoriesareshowninthefinalcolumn.Table9:Four-waycategorisationofleave-deprivedemployees,WTSandSEAS.

2006 2007 2009 2012

allyearsaverage%


PROPORTIONOFALLEMPLOYEES narrowly-definedcasuals 1.4% 1.7% 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% 119.9unsubstantiatedcasuals 21.3% 23.7% 21.7% 20.7% 21.9% 1858.1 compensatedcasuals 11.0% 12.1% 11.3% 10.7% 11.3% 958.9uncompensatedcasuals 11.8% 13.3% 11.8% 11.2% 12.0% 1019.1 ‘narrowly-definedcompensated’casuals 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 56.5‘uncompensatednarrowly-defined’casuals, 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 63.4‘compensatedunsubstantiated’casuals 10.3% 11.4% 10.6% 10.2% 10.6% 902.4‘uncompensatedunsubstantiatedcasuals’, 11.0% 12.3% 11.1% 10.6% 11.3% 955.6 Allleave-deprivedemployees 22.8% 25.4% 23.1% 22.9% 23.3% 1978.0 PROPORTIONofLEAVE-DEPRIVEDWORKERS narrowly-definedcasuals 6.3% 6.7% 6.0% 5.3% 6.1% 119.9unsubstantiatedcasuals 93.7% 93.3% 94.0% 94.7% 93.9% 1858.1 compensatedleave-deprivedworkers 48.1% 47.8% 49.1% 49.0% 48.5% 958.9uncompensatedleave-deprivedworkers 51.9% 52.2% 50.9% 51.0% 51.5% 1019.1 ‘narrowly-definedcompensated’casuals

2.8% 3.0% 3.1% 2.6% 2.9% 56.5

‘uncompensatednarrowly-defined’casuals,

3.5% 3.7% 2.9% 2.8% 3.2% 63.4

‘compensatedunsubstantiated’casuals

45.3% 44.8% 46.0% 46.4% 45.6% 902.4

‘uncompensatedunsubstantiatedcasuals’,

48.4% 48.5% 48.0% 48.3% 48.3% 955.6

Population:AllemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.Ascanbeseen,onlyapproximately1.4%ofemployeeswerenarrowly-definedcasuals.Thisrepresentedjustover6%ofleave-deprivedemployees,andequivalenttoaround120,000employees.Therewasnoconsistenttrendovertimefortheproportionofnarrowly-defined

21

casualsamongstallemployeestochange.Thisreflectsthewaythatnotimetrendwasevidentintheproportionofleave-deprivedemployeeswhoarenarrowly-definedcasuals,andnotimetrendwasevidentintheproportionofemployeeswhowereleave-deprived.Indeed,sincethentherehasalsobeennoconsistenttimetrendintheshareofemployeeswhoareleave-deprived—theshareofleave-deprivedemployeesintotalemploymentgrewsubstantiallybetweenthemid1980sandtheearly2000s,buthasbeenquitestablesincethen(despitethecontinuinggrowthinpart-timeemployment).Itisalsoapparentthatlessthanhalfofnarrowly-definedcasualsarecompensated,thatistheyreceivethecasualloading.Onlyasmallportionofcompensatedleave-deprivedworkersarenarrowly-definedcasuals.Howdidsomeoftheothercharacteristicsweconsideredrelatetothesecategorisations?Uncompensatednarrowly-definedcasualswerelesslikelytohavevariablehoursthancompensatedcasuals.Table10showsthatnarrowly-definedcasualswereoneandahalftimesmorelikelythanunsubstantiatedcasualstobeunabletochoosetheirholidays.Thisreflectsthefactthattheywereemployedmoreatthewhimoftheemployer(andagainhighlightstheprevalenceoflowflexibilityfortheemployeewhenthereisgenuinelyflexiblecasualemploymentfortheemployer).Thegroupthathadtheleastflexibilityinthisregardwasuncompensatednarrowly-definedcasuals,ofwhom39%couldnotchoosetheirholidays(comparedto23%amongstunsubstantiated,compensatedcasuals).Theinabilitytochooseholidaysandnon-receiptofloadingmaybothbereflectiveoflowpowerheldbytheseemployees.Table10:Proportionofworkerswhoareunabletochoosetheirholidays,byfour-waycategorisationofleave-deprivedemployees,WTSandSEAS.

2006 2007 2009 2012

allyearsaverage

%

averageno.of

employees(‘000)

narrowly-definedcasuals 40.1% 32.7% 36.5% 36.3% 36.4% 43.4unsubstantiatedcasuals 25.7% 22.5% 24.0% 24.3% 24.1% 447.0 compensatedleave-deprivedworkers 24.3% 22.5% 23.3% 24.3% 23.6% 226.3uncompensatedleave-deprivedworkers 28.7% 23.8% 26.1% 25.6% 26.0% 264.2 ‘narrowly-definedcompensated’casuals 36.5% 31.6% 33.9% 32.1% 33.5% 18.9‘uncompensatednarrowly-defined’casuals, 43.0% 33.5% 39.4% 40.3% 39.0% 24.5‘compensatedunsubstantiated’casuals 23.6% 21.9% 22.6% 23.9% 23.0% 207.4‘uncompensatedunsubstantiatedcasuals’, 27.6% 23.0% 25.3% 24.7% 25.2% 239.6Population:AllemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.

22

Narrowly-definedcasualswerealsomorelikelythanunsubstantiatedcasualstobenotguaranteedminimumhours,asshowninTable11.Therewasapproximatelya20percentagepointdifferenceinthelikelihoodthesetwogroupsinthelikelihoodofhavingguaranteedminimumhours.Thisisagainsuggestiveoflowerpoweramongstnarrowly-definedcasuals.Similarly,amongstworkerswithvariablehours,narrowly-definedcasualsweremuchmorelikelytolackguaranteedminimumhours.Table11:Proportionofworkerswhowerenotguaranteedminimumhours,byfour-waycategorisationofleave-deprivedemployees,WTSandSEAS.

2009 2012

allyearsaverage

%

averageno.of

employees(‘000)

narrowly-definedcasuals 70.9% 77.3% 74.1% 55.6unsubstantiatedcasuals 54.1% 56.6% 55.4% 695.5 compensatedcasuals 57.9% 58.4% 58.2% 379.5uncompensatedcasuals 52.4% 57.1% 54.7% 371.6 ‘narrowly-definedcompensated’casuals

71.3% 80.3% 75.8% 28.2

‘uncompensatednarrowly-defined’casuals,

70.6% 74.6% 72.6% 27.3

‘compensatedunsubstantiated’casuals

57.0% 57.2% 57.1% 351.3

‘uncompensatedunsubstantiatedcasuals’,

51.3% 56.1% 53.7% 344.3

Population:AllemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.ConclusionsThemajorityofleave-deprivedworkershavebeenwiththeiremployerforoverayear.Themajorityexpecttobewiththesameemployerayearintothefuture.Aroundhalfhavestablehoursfromoneweektothenextandarenotonstandby.Thefeaturesofleave-deprivedemployeesdonot,onthesurface,appeartobethecharacteristicsofflexible,casualemployment.Theseworkersdohavesomeothercharacteristicsthatarerelevant.Amajorityhavenoguaranteedminimumhours.Amajoritycannotchoosethedaysonwhichtheywork.Onlyaroundhalfofthemknowinglyreceivethecasualloading.Andallofthem,bydefinition,havenoannualorsickleave.Thecommonfeatureappearstobelowpower.Employersmayhavetheabilitytodeploytheminallsortsofflexibleways,butoftendonotneedtoutilisethatflexibility.Thelowuseoftheseflexibilitiesisindicatedbytheseemingstabilityofemploymentformanyleave-deprivedworkers,stabilitywhichbyitsnaturesuitstheemployer.Theimplicitthreatofhavingtheirhourscut,orbeingdismissed,enhancesthepotentialpoweroftheemployertoexercisediscipline.So‘casual’employmentreduces

23

employeepowerandreducesemployeeentitlements(oftenwithoutanyoffsetting‘loading’)undertheguiseofprovidingnecessaryflexibility.Thedatasuggest,then,that‘casual’employmentissomethingofachimera.Foronething,onlyabouthalfofleave-deprivedemployees,thegrouppopularlydepictedascasuals,receivethecasualloading.Somemaybeillegallyunderpaidbyemployers—somethingthatevidencefromauditsandcasesundertakenbytheFairWorkOmbudsmansuggestshappens.Evenamongstthosewhodoreceivethecasualloading,thewagepenaltyforcasuals,identifiedbyLaßandWooden(2019),suggeststhatsome(perhapsmany)casualsarepaidlessthantheyotherwisewouldbeiftheywerenotcasuals.Thecasualloadingbecomespartoftheirweeklypaythattheydependuponandtheirweeklypayisfrequentlynohigherthanthelegalminimum.Thisisnotjustthecasefor‘narrowly-definedcasuals’,itisaproblemforallleave-deprivedemployees.Inaddition,manyleave-deprivedworkersarenot‘genuinelyflexible’casuals,sincetheyhavebeenwiththeemployerforalongperiod,orexpecttobein,orhave,regular,predictableworkhoursthatdonotsuggestanythingcasualabouttherelationshipwiththeemployer.Whilecasualemployeesdonotreceiveleave,notallemployeeswithoutleavearegenuinelyflexiblecasuals.Atleasthalfofleave-deprivedemployeeshaveneithervariablehoursnorarequirementtobeonstandby.Mostleave-deprivedemployeescouldchoosewhentheytookholidays,thoughthiswas10percentagepointslessthanleave-entitledemployees.Itistruethatthemajorityhavenocontroloverthedaysonwhichtheywork,butthatdoesseematoddswiththeideathatcasualworkprovidesflexibilityfortheemployeetoworkwhenitsuitsthem.Amajoritydidnothaveguaranteedminimumhours,reflectingtheirlowpower,somethingassociatedwiththeirprecaritymorethananyvariablehours.Only6percentofleave-deprivedworkersare‘narrowly-definedcasuals’—thatis,theyhavebeenwiththeiremployerforlessthanayear,expecttobewiththeemployerforlessthanayear,andhavevariablehoursorareonstandby.Thatthousandsof‘casual’employeescanbewiththeemployerfor5,10or20yearsindicatesthatthisisnotacasualemploymentrelationship.Lessthanhalfoftheseworkersreportreceivingthecasualloading,enablingthemtomeetthecriteriaforthe‘mostnarrowly-definedcasuals’group.However,thiswouldbetoostrictadefinition,asmany‘genuinelyflexible’casualsmissoutontheloadingsimplybecauseofillegalunderpaymentofentitlements.Wedonotknowthenumberofworkerswhowouldbedefinedas‘casuals’asaresultoftheRossatoandSkenedecisionsoftheFederalCourt.Itseemslikely,however,thatifitwereliketheconceptof‘genuinelyflexible’casualsitwouldbeclosertothenumberof‘narrowly-definedcasuals’identifiedinthepreviousparagraph(1.4%ofallemployees)thantoanyofthe‘broadly-defined’estimatesofcasualsthatweremadeinthspaper,whichrangedfrom4.7%to11.7%ofemployees.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheemploymentofleave-deprivedemployeesissecure,orthattheproblemofprecarityinemploymentisexaggeratedbythecommonlabellingofleave-deprivedemployeesas‘casuals’.Theirprecarityisreal.Mostleave-deprivedworkersareinanemploymentrelationshipthatcanbeterminatedwithoutnoticeattheendofashift.We

24

donotknowhowmanyleave-deprivedworkersareinthissituationofpermanentinsecurity.Itssizewouldbepresumablybesignifiedbyaddingallofthoseworkerswhoreceivethecasualloading,plussomeportionofthosewhodonotreceivetheloadingbutaretreatedas‘casual’bytheemployer(eveniftheiremploymentislong-termandtheirhoursarestable).Thatis,itwouldbetheclearmajorityofleave-deprivedemployees.Thepopularterm‘permanentcasual’—itselfanoxymoron—ismoreaccuratelyphrasedas‘permanentlyinsecure’.Employmentinthesesituationsisnot‘casual’butitiscasualised,inthatthefeaturesofitareshapedtomakeitlooklikecasualemployment.Thecommonlycitedstatisticthataround25%ofemployeesarecasuals,basedontheincidenceofleave-deprivedemployment,isindeedadepictionoftheproportionofemployeesinthisformofprecariouswork,butitisnotremotelyadepictionoftheproportionofemployeesingenuinelyflexiblecasualemployment.Overall,wecanpicturethegroupthatisnormallydescribedas‘casual’ashavingonedefiningcharacteristicandtwobroadelements:theyallaredeprivedofcertaincoreworkerentitlements;andformost(especiallythoseonlowerincomes),theworkisinsecureandtheylackpower.Forasmallsub-groupofthat,flexibilityinworkinghoursortenureisarequirementtheemployerfaces(andtheirpowerislowerstill).Butforthemajorityofleave-deprivedworkers(popularlydescribedas‘casuals’),thisneedforflexibilityismorearationalethanagenuineexplanationfortheirstatusandlackofentitlements.RatherthanseeingwhatisdescribedinAustraliaas‘casual’employmentasasourceofflexibilityforemployerandemployee,enablingshort-termbusinessneedstobemetinthemostefficientway,itmaybemoreaccuratetoviewit(forthemajorityofcases)assimplyameansofdeprivingemployeesoftheirleaveentitlementsandpromotingprecarityandhencedependenceontheemployer’sprerogative.Thehighrateof‘casual’employmentenablesAustraliatohavealevelofleavecoverageaslowasthatintheUSA,acountrywithnolegalobligationsonemployerstoprovideleaveentitlements.ItiscorrectfortheABStodescribetheemployeesthatwerethesubjectofthispaperas‘workerswithoutleaveentitlements’.Itisnotcorrecttoestablisharegulatoryframeworkthattreatsthewithholdingofleaveentitlementsforsuchpeopleastheinevitableconsequenceofa‘casual’employmentrelationship.

25

APPENDIXDataonOtherflexibilitiesorcontrolsTableA1Abilitytochooseworkingdaysforleave-deprivedworkers



Allleave-deprivedworkers Hadsomesayindaysonwhichworked 44.6% 51.7% 41.2% 39.4% 44.2% 875.6Didnothaveanysayindaysonwhichworked 55.4% 48.3% 58.8% 60.6% 55.8% 1100.1

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1978.0Receivedcasualloading Hadsomesayindaysonwhichworked 45.0% 52.6% 43.1% 41.4% 45.5% 437.1Didnothaveanysayindaysonwhichworked 55.0% 47.4% 56.9% 58.6% 54.5% 521.7

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 958.9Didnotreceivecasualloading Hadsomesayindaysonwhichworked 45.2% 48.7% 39.4% 38.1% 42.9% 308.0Didnothaveanysayindaysonwhichworked 54.8% 51.3% 60.6% 61.9% 57.1% 408.5

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 717.6Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.TableA2:Whetherleave-deprivedworkershadguaranteedminimumhours

2009 2012allyearsaverage


Total Guaranteedminimumhours 44.9% 42.3% 43.6% 870.2Wasnotguaranteedminimumhours 55.1% 57.7% 56.4% 1,126.6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Receivedcasualloading Guaranteedminimumhours 42.1% 41.6% 41.8% 409.5Wasnotguaranteedminimumhours 57.9% 58.4% 58.2% 569.3

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Didnotreceivecasualloading Guaranteedminimumhours 46.6% 44.8% 45.7% 321.2Wasnotguaranteedminimumhours 53.4% 55.2% 54.3% 381.1

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTS.

26

TableA3:Whetherleave-deprivedworkerswithvariablehourshadguaranteedminimumhours

2006 2007 2009 2012

allyearsaverage


Guaranteed minimum hours and hours varied weekly 31.4% 30.7% 27.6% 25.4% 28.8% 217.7 Was not guaranteed minimum hours and hours varied weekly 68.6% 69.3% 72.4% 74.6% 71.2% 543.0

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 760.7Population:Leave-deprivedemployeeswithhoursvaryingweeklySource:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.TableA4:Abilitytochooseholidays,WTSandSEAS.

2006 2007 2009 2012

allyearsaverage%


Receivedcasualloading Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 66.2% 67.7% 66.6% 66.6% 66.8% 640.5Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 9.5% 9.8% 10.1% 9.1% 9.6% 92.2Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 24.3% 22.5% 23.3% 24.3% 23.6% 226.3

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Didnotreceivecasualloading Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 64.1% 67.6% 66.1% 64.7% 65.6% 471.3Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 7.9% 8.2% 7.6% 9.8% 8.4% 60.1Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 28.0% 24.2% 26.3% 25.5% 26.0% 186.2

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 56.1% 67.5% 63.4% 62.0% 62.2% 189.0Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 13.5% 9.7% 11.0% 12.2% 11.6% 34.5Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 30.5% 22.8% 25.6% 25.8% 26.2% 77.9

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 64.0% 67.6% 65.9% 65.2% 65.7% 1,300.8Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 9.4% 9.2% 9.3% 9.9% 9.4% 186.8Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 26.6% 23.2% 24.7% 24.9% 24.9% 490.4

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Population:Leave-deprivedemployees

27

Source:UnpublishedABSdatafromWTSandSEAS.TableA5:Abilitytochooseholidays,EEBTUM.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

allyearsaverage%


Receivedcasualloading Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 63.9% 67.1% 66.1% 66.6% 64.7% 65.7% 697.9Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 9.4% 11.0% 10.7% 8.9% 12.1% 10.4% 110.6Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 26.7% 21.9% 23.2% 24.5% 23.2% 23.9% 253.6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Didnotreceivecasualloading Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 60.5% 62.6% 64.4% 66.6% 65.5% 63.9% 455.7Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 9.5% 11.3% 10.9% 10.5% 12.8% 11.0% 78.4Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 30.0% 26.1% 24.7% 22.9% 21.6% 25.1% 179.3

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Didnotknowwhetherreceivedcasualloading Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 61.8% 64.2% 63.2% 67.0% 59.6% 63.2% 256.4Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 11.9% 12.9% 11.2% 11.9% 18.1% 13.2% 54.4Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 25.7% 22.5% 25.4% 20.8% 21.8% 23.2% 94.1

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Allleave-deprivedworkers Couldchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 62.3% 65.1% 65.0% 66.7% 63.9% 64.6% 1,410.1Couldsometimeschoosewhenholidaysweretaken 9.9% 11.4% 10.8% 10.0% 13.6% 11.1% 243.4Couldnotchoosewhenholidaysweretaken 27.7% 23.4% 24.1% 23.3% 22.4% 24.2% 527.0

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Population:Leave-deprivedemployeesSource:UnpublishedABSdatafromEEBTUM.

28

ReferencesAustralian Bureau of Statistics. 6306.0. Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia. Canberra:

AGPS. Kuddo, Arvo. 2018. Labor Regulations throughout the World: An Overview. Wshington DC:

World Bank. Laß, Inga, and Mark Wooden. 2019. "The Structure of the Wage Gap for Temporary

Workers: Evidence from Australian Panel Data." British Journal of Industrial Relations. doi: 10.1111/bjir.12458.

Legge, K. 1995. Human Resource Management: Rhetoric andRealities. London: Macmillan. Maye, Adewale. 2019. No-Vacation Nation, Revised. Washington, DC: Center for Economic

and Policy Research. Peetz, David. 2017. The impact of the penalty rates decision on Australian and Victorian

workers in retail and hospitality industries. Melbourne: Department of Economic Development, Jobs Transport and Resources Commissioned Research Report.

Documents

What do the data on casuals really mean - v5