Labor to give casuals new rights to full-time employment in move to improve job security
Labor to give casuals new rights to full-time employment in move to improve job security
Workplace relations minister Tony Burke says people should not be stuck as casuals if they work permanent regular hours
Henceforth, all casuals are getting their shifts reduced to 34 hours a week. Oh dear, looks like you don't qualify. Such a shame.
Unfortunately the reference to full-time is sloppy reporting from the Guardian. The quotes from the Minister only mention converting to 'permanent' work
Currently casuals working regular part-time hours are supposed to be offered permanent part-time work. I doubt they'll be changing that.
filthy casuals! (I kid, I kid)
Please may someone explain this a little bit more for me? My understanding has been that casuals are a temporary solution to fill gaps in the various sectors of employment.
Why would we need a plan to make them permanent? Would the onus not be on the employer to decide to ask if they would want full time work if they had the ability to do so? Or is this purely a means to prevent employers from extorting casuals?
In some sectors such as universities where my partner works casualisation is quite clearly a permanent solution.
My understanding has been that casuals are a temporary solution to fill gaps in the various sectors of employment
There are probably some situations where that applies, but I'd bet it's actually very rare. It costs a lot of money to hire someone, they need to be trained/etc and a lot of that burden on the employer is the same whether you pay them 1 hour a week or 40 hours a week. I'm pretty sure employers want each individual employee to work as many hours as possible - you will always get better productivity from one person working 40 hours a week than from ten people working 4 hours a week. It costs exactly the same in wages, but the output is better with longer hours (up to a point - once people work overtime there are burnout/etc issues, and productivity drops).
There is no limit on the number of hours a casual employee can work, and if at all possible most employers would like that number to be 40 hours a week just like full time staff. A lot of "casual" staff do work 40 hours a week (I do).
Full time employees are entitled to 6 weeks of paid leave (combination sick pay and holiday) every year.
Casual employees who work "full time" are not entitled to any paid leave at all.
As far as I know that is basically the only difference between the two. Another commonly cited reason is it's easier to fire a casual employee but that's only really true if the casual employee is not working regular hours. If they're rostered on regularly they get the same protections as a full time employee.
The other difference is hourly wages are (or at least should be) higher for casual employees, but your annual pay is (or should be) exactly the same if you take six weeks of "unpaid" leave.
My employer gave me a choice, and I chose casual. I like the extra hourly pay - six weeks is a lot of money and it earns quite a bit of interest (especially these days!) in a savings account waiting for my next holiday. It also encourages me to go on holidays where I don't spend much money. Camping for example.
It is easier to apply for loans/etc if you're full time... that's the only benefit I can think of.
The 25% casual loading is calculated to take in notice of termination and redundancy pay too. Lots of people resign and fewer are made redundant, so wouldn't get notice or redundancy pay anyway. That means in most circumstances, employees are better off in a pure money sense as casuals.
The big downside is if things are quiet at work you aren't guaranteed any hours. As you mention, that also creates a hurdle when applying for loans.
To extend on this, which is accurate, there's a few extra things that are worth mentioning.
Unless you've signed a contract that specifically changes these (and which you would need to be compensated for to make the contract legal):
Full time employees get long service leave, which only kicks in for full time employees after several years.
Certain industries in South Australia such as Electricians, Plumbers etc have transferrable long service leave (it carries across employers in what is effectively a gig job).
Full time employees are paid for public holidays, which they are not obliged to work.
A full time employee basically cannot be fired without cause - only made redundant.
If you are made redundant, you will be paid a settlement.
This is why it's easier to get loans etc by the way, the bank has reason to believe you'll continue your employment.As an aside, the paid sick leave is pretty important.
If I get sick, I don't go to work and therefore don't spread that illness to my coworkers, and I can still pay my rent and buy food.
A casual employee has to decide if they are sick enough to forgo income for one or more days.Unscrupulous individuals taking "mental health days", where they're not sick, has been a big part in the movement to casualising the workforce (in my opinion).
Thanks for the detailed breakdown, it makes sense about what you've just been saying. It stands to reason that government should put in more protections for casuals rather than just being offered a full time position by an employer for those that choose to stay casual.