1 / 11

New Australian Working Time Minimum Standards: Reproducing the Same Old Gendered Architecture?

New Australian Working Time Minimum Standards: Reproducing the Same Old Gendered Architecture? . Women Collectivism Symposium 11 May 2011 University of Sydney. Sara Charlesworth & Alexandra Heron. Presentation.

manjit
Download Presentation

New Australian Working Time Minimum Standards: Reproducing the Same Old Gendered Architecture?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Australian Working Time Minimum Standards: Reproducing the Same Old Gendered Architecture? Women Collectivism Symposium 11 May 2011 University of Sydney Sara Charlesworth & Alexandra Heron

  2. Presentation • Starting point: Does new FWA ‘safety net’ challenge legacy of ‘SER-centrism’ (Vosko 2007)? • Focus on: • Frontline paid care work • Working time minima - neglected dimension in understanding pay inequity • Thru analysis of on-paper provisions of NES & Aged Care, SCHCDS & Manufacturing ‘modern’ awards →from standpoint of part-time and casual workers

  3. Two Distinct Workforces… Manufacturing • 27% women • 11% casual (21% women) • 15% PT (35% women) • 3.8% underemployment Community Services • 85-90% women • 29%-35%++ casual (Martin & King 2008) • 40%-80% PT (PC 2010, 2011) • 9.3% underemployment (15% community personal service workers • Short hours PT • 26% of frontline workers want more hours (1/2 want 10+ hpw more) (Martin & Healy 2010)

  4. Legacy of Labour force & Regulatory Change • Capacity to bargain major issue in female dominated sectors • Less than ½ female workers covered by EAs • Women more likely to be award reliant (award safety net ceiling not floor) • ¼ of PT female workers & 36% of casual female workers • 15% manufacturing workers award reliant cf 17% health & social assistance industry & 31% of community & personal care workers • Increased employer-orientated flexibility traded off for meagre wage increases: • Widening span of hours • Reducing penalty rates • Decreasing periods of notice for roster changes • esp for PT: • Reduced minimum hours • Provided for flexing up and down at ord time rates (no casual loading) → erosion of regularity & predictability of PT work as PT work increased: • 1990= 10% → 2007=29% • Protection of awards further eroded under WRA 1996 & Work Choices

  5. Fair Work Act 2009 Would guarantee: ‘a safety net of fair, relevant, and enforceable minimum terms and conditions for Australian workers’ Gillard 2008 Safety net = 10 National Employment Standards + ‘modern’ awards

  6. NES: Fair and relevant to non-SER workers? • NES 1: Maximum weekly hours = 38+ additional overtime • No minimum weekly hours or minimum periods of engagement • Casual workers not covered by NES on: • annual leave, paid carers or compassionate leave, notice of termination or redundancy, paid community service and jury leave • Casuals have to be ‘regular and systematic casuals’ with 12mths+ service to access NES on unpaid parental leave & RTR • 46% of female casuals in job for < 1 year (ABS 2007) • 12 mths service for unpaid parental leave & RTR excludes 26% of all women • Can’t pursue breach of RTR flexible work and extension of unpaid parental leave

  7. ‘Modern’ Awards: How modern are they? Modern = contemporary, up-to-date, new, fresh, cutting-edge… AIRC recognised obligation to ‘have regard to the need to help and eliminate discrimination as well as to the needs of the low paid (AIRC, 29 April 2008) But… Award modernisation not about instituting relevant inclusive 21st century standards → patching together of existing state and federal awards and maintaining status quo ‘…the way the AIRC created modern awards was they got all the (relevant) awards and found the ‘critical mass’ on every condition’ Will Ash, National Legal Officer, United Voice

  8. Comparison of 3 ‘modern’ awards…

  9. Comparison of 3 ‘modern’ awards…

  10. Variable minima • Manufacturing award despite SER basis provides: • greatest regularity and predictability for PT • written agreement of hours days, schedules • OT paid once over agreed hours • discourages casual employment/ some security of income for casuals • min hours = 4 • Only 1 with casual conversion clause – yet casual work is exception • Aged Care award provides for a written agreement with variation by written agreement • SCHCDS award provides only for PT to ‘be informed’ by employer with silences on variations • Aged & SCHCDC awards • flexing up and down of hours • gendered hierarchy of care work dependent on location of care • SCHCDS award entrenches use of casuals • Casuals only paid loading not overtime or weekend penalties

  11. Conclusions • SER-centrism continues to prevail in FWA safety net • Better protection for non-standard workers in archetypal SER award • Gendered hierarchy of care work between and within Aged and SCHCDS awards • Care work still not seen as ‘work’- QIRC 2009→ • Associated with ‘inherent’ caring skills of women • Seen as a vocation, not an occupation • Widespread use of volunteers muddies assessment of work value • Nature of client group leads workers to sacrifice ‘on-paper’ conditions • Quality care provision depends on high job quality of care work • Working time minima matter for decent working lives AND pay equity

More Related