CASUAL WORK AND CASUALISATION: HOW DOES AUSTRALIA
COMPARE?
Iain Campbell
Centre for Applied Social Research
RMIT University
Report prepared for a conference ‘Work Interrupted: Casual and Insecure
Employment in Australia’, Melbourne, August 2 2004
1
CASUAL WORK AND CASUALISATION: HOW DOES AUSTRALIA
COMPARE?
Iain Campbell
After more than ten years of academic research, we know a lot about casual work in
Australia. The process of ‘casualisation’, which has seen the number of casual
workers rise to more than a quarter of all employees, has spurred on several bursts of
research. Using official statistics, industry or enterprise case studies, interviews, legal
cases and inquiries, scholars have succeeded in building an impressive body of
knowledge concerning the extent of casual work, the rate and patterns of its growth,
its different features, the place of casual work in the system of labour regulation, the
characteristics of casual workers, and the different patterns of participation in casual
work.
This is not to say that casual work and casualisation is now uncontroversial. On the
contrary, they remain hotly contested topics. Gaps in our knowledge continue to
generate discussion and debate. Most important, there is continuing disagreement at
the level of evaluation, especially in regard to possible policies for dealing with casual
work. Is the rapid growth of casual work a problem? Many commentators say yes.
Casual work is seen as associated with disadvantages, including low pay and various
forms of labour insecurity. These create difficulties first of all for the workers
involved, but also more broadly for their families, their communities, the enterprises
themselves, and the general society. In this perspective, awareness of casualisation is
a call for action, primarily through initiatives to design better labour regulation. On
the other hand, others contend that casualisation is not a problem. It may be conceded
that casual work is associated with disadvantages for individual workers – though it is
often argued that the extent of these disadvantages is overstated – but this point of
view asserts that casual work is simply the price paid for flexibility and for prosperity
in a modern economy. As such, it is necessary and indeed welcome. It is argued that
any disadvantages for individual workers should be tackled through the welfare
system and not by intervention in the sphere of employment. Far from a need for
government intervention, the main imperative is to extend employer flexibility
further.
The lines of division in this evaluation and policy debate are complex. Roughly
speaking, however, we can say that the debate tends to oppose trade unions on the one
hand and some business groups/ federal government on the other hand. It opposes
calls for better labour regulation (sometimes called ‘re-regulation’) on the one hand
and calls for a continuation of the neoliberal thrust towards reduced protective
regulation (sometimes called ‘labour market deregulation’) on the other hand.
This report approaches the debate from a particular angle. It adopts a cross-national
perspective in order to explore the experience of casualisation in Australia. As Tiffen
and Gittens (2004, 1-2; see Rubery and Grimshaw, 2003) point out, cross-national
comparison can be a useful way to push forward discussion. Comparison can
2
facilitate a better delineation of the individual case of Australia, test generalisations,
and increase knowledge of alternative policies, differing institutional arrangements
and contrasting cultural assumptions.
Cross-national comparisons are already an underlying issue in the discussion of
casualisation, though only in a rather primitive form, confined to debates around
official statistics. There is widespread awareness that the category of casual
employment and its recent pattern of growth in Australia are unusual (eg Australian
Government, 2003, 16). But there is continuing confusion about just what this means.
Precisely how unusual and in what ways? What does this mean for the evaluation of
casual work? What does this mean for policy? These slide into several other
questions. What is happening in other OECD countries? Are there similar processes
at work? Which countries are most relevant for comparisons? What can we learn
from efforts to respond to labour market changes? Are we doing better or worse than
other countries? How successful are other countries in designing regulation to
balance needs for flexibility and for security?
This report cannot offer detailed answers to all questions. It has a more limited range.
It offers an initial exploration of international comparisons, centring on the pivotal
issue of the peculiarity of casualisation in Australia. It draws on data and secondary
literature from just a select few countries, while neglecting many others. The first
section provides a brief sketch of casual work in Australia, focussing on the features
that are most salient for cross-national comparisons. It builds on the everyday
understanding of ‘casual’ as waged work that lacks many of the rights and benefits
associated with standard ‘permanent’ employment. The second section considers the
heart of the matter. How does casual employment in Australia compare? This section
follows three different approaches, of varying degrees of utility, to answering this
question. It confirms that our version of casual work is unusual. Most OECD
countries regard such employment as inappropriate in a modern society and therefore
proscribe it, either directly or indirectly. Something parallel may survive in small
amounts as day labour in some countries or as an indirect consequence result of
qualifying conditions for access to rights and benefits. Something parallel may also
survive, sometimes in larger amounts, in the illegal or informal sector. But, apart
from the possible exception of the United States, it is hard to find anything similar to
our casual employment, at the same level of prominence and the same level of official
endorsement, in other OECD countries. The third section summarises the conclusions
that can be drawn from this comparison. It suggests that casual employment is not
only unusual but also unnecessary. Most OECD countries are clearly able to get by
without it. They are able to build prosperous, dynamic economies which reconcile
employer and employee needs through more acceptable forms of permanent and nonpermanent employment, such as fixed-term, probationary, and good quality part-time
employment. Finally, the fourth section returns to the vexed issue of regulation. It
argues that there is a need to move beyond the old-fashioned 1980s debate about less
or more labour regulation. The more important issue is whether labour regulation is
well-designed and effective. The section concludes by briefly reviewing the
experiences in other countries in regulating non-permanent forms of employment.
1. A brief sketch of casual work in Australia
3
In Australia, as in most OECD countries, the twentieth century saw a slow process of
accretion of rights and benefits within the standard employment relationship, starting
with employment security but readily extending out to guaranteed minimum wages,
standardised working-time arrangements and rights to collective representation
(Bosch, 2004). As in most OECD countries, the framework of protection and
minimum standards in Australia covered the vast majority of waged jobs, generally
called ‘permanent’ (or ‘ongoing’ or ‘continuing) jobs. However, as in most countries,
some waged jobs missed out on this development. As a result, these jobs tended to
display a shortfall in rights and benefits in comparison with the standard ‘permanent’
job, and the employment structure tended to acquire a dualistic division, with
permanent jobs separated from varied types of non-permanent jobs.
a) Definitions of casual
The main category in Australia that missed out on this historical development is
called ‘casual’. Definitions of casual employment are often a site of confusion and
controversy, marked by conflicts between vernacular, regulatory and contractual
meanings (O’Donnell, 2004). The nuances of this debate are not a major concern here
(see Campbell and Burgess, 2001b). It is only necessary to note that the report starts
with an everyday understanding of casual, as a form of employment in which the
worker is deprived of many rights and benefits, including lack of entitlement to paid
annual leave, paid sick leave, paid public holidays, notice of dismissal and
redundancy pay. It is a form of employment that can be regarded as largely
unprotected because it misses out on many types of social protection developed for
permanent employees.
Casual employment is by no means the only category of waged work that stands
outside standard permanent employment in Australia (Watson et al., 2003). Labour
regulation also provides for fixed-term employment, apprenticeships and traineeships.
Recently, as in many countries, temporary work agencies (‘labour hire’) have begun
to acquire prominence as a way of organising different forms of employment. In
addition, new forms of ‘disguised wage labour’ or ‘dependent contracting’ have
begun to spring up on the boundary between employee and non-employee status.
Nevertheless, casual work has always been the largest of these non-permanent
categories. Moreover, it has grown rapidly over the past two decades.
The substantial size of the casual workforce is clear enough from the official statistics.
According to one conventional measure used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS), a ‘casual employee’ can be defined as an employee who is not entitled (in
their main job) to paid annual leave and paid sick leave. ‘Casual employees’ in this
sense numbered 2,239,900 persons in August 2003. They represented 27.6 percent of
all employees (or around 23.6 percent of the total employed labour force). 1 These
1
The data are from the regular series, Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership
(EEBTUM), used to construct estimates of ‘casual’ and ‘permanent’ employment over time. Since
2000 the categories of ‘casual’ and ‘permanent’ have been re-labelled as ‘without leave entitlements’
and ‘with leave entitlements’. This conventional ABS measure has some problems, which are
extensively canvassed in the secondary literature (Campbell and Burgess, 2001b). One major problem
is to do with the underlying definition of ‘employee’, which includes owner-managers of incorporated
enterprises. The presence of this group can distort the data on casual employment. Though the overall
effect is not major, it is still significant. Recent ABS surveys, including the latest EEBTUM (ABS Cat.
4
figures point to a trajectory of rapid growth, the number having risen from 850,000
persons or 15.8 percent of all employees in 1984. In the 1990s the absolute number of
full-time permanent workers declined while growth in casual employment accounted
for most of the net growth in employment (Borland, Gregory and Sheehan, 2001, 1112).
Casual employment is available to employers through different channels. As well as
casual employees who are hired directly, firms can draw either on ‘casual pools’
organised by the employer or on temporary agencies which supply workers to firms as
need arises (Watson et al., 2003, 65). The majority of workers organised by
temporary agencies are classified as ‘casuals’ and at any one point in time they
account for about six to nine percent of those counted as casual employees (Campbell,
Watson and Buchanan, 2004).
b) Casual work and labour regulation
Casual employment, understood as employment with few of the standard rights and
benefits of permanent work, is firmly anchored in features of labour regulation. In
contrast to most other labour regulation systems, the Australian system permits
employees – with remarkably few controls – to be employed with only limited rights
and benefits under the heading of ‘casuals’. In most awards, rights and benefits were
defined for most employees along the conventional axis of full-time permanent
employment, but special clauses allowed for workers to be employed under certain
forms of work that were exempted from the standard provisions. The most
commonly-found clause covered ‘casual’ employment. This form of work was
subject to a blanket exemption that covered almost all rights and benefits (but with a
casual loading on the hourly rate of pay, partly intended as compensation for the
foregone benefits).
No doubt this exemption was designed to allow room for employers in certain
industries to deploy labour for short-term and irregular work demands, as in a
common dictionary definition of ‘casual’. However, the award definition of casual
was generally much broader. Casuals are often defined in awards somewhat
tautologically, as ‘casual’ because they are paid ‘as such’: form overrides practical
substance as one industrial lawyer has put it (Stewart 2002: 10). Nor did the controls
found in such clauses help much. Sometimes they sought to set a limit on the length
of time workers could be employed under such contracts, but more often they took the
No. 6310.0, August 2003), provide some data that exclude owner-managers (see below Table 2).
Excluding owner-managers lowers the estimate for the number of casuals in August 2003 from
2,239,900 to 1,907,600. This would represent 25.4 percent of all employees or around 20.1 percent of
the workforce.
In some recent irregular or occasional surveys the ABS also uses a new measure of ‘self-identified
casual’. Apart from minor changes, this involves two main changes in comparison with the
conventional measure based on leave entitlements. First, it removes owner-managers of incorporated
enterprises from the count of employees. Second, amongst the remaining group of employees without
leave entitlements it distinguishes those who identify themselves as casual and those who do not. The
first change is useful, but the introduction of a filter according to self-identification is hard to justify
(see Campbell and Burgess, 2001b). It is true that the vast majority (88.8 percent in 2001) of
employees without leave entitlements do in fact identify themselves as casual, but the fact that a small
minority are removed from the figures introduces an unfortunate complication. In 2001 self-identified
casuals numbered 1,811,000 (24.8 percent of all employees) (ABS 6359.0, November 2001).
5
simple form of quotas for casuals (number of employees or number of hours). The
broad definition and the poor design of the controls left ample room for the category
of casual to be abused, taken up by employers for a variety of purposes that stretched
well beyond meeting short-term and irregular work demands.
The existence in awards (and also in statute) of this exemption constitutes a type of
gap in the regulatory system. It is what can be called an ‘officially sanctioned’ gap,
whereby casual work is regulated but not protected. However, it is by no means the
only gap within which casual employment can be found (Campbell, 1996). The
Australian system is highly porous and opaque. Two other gaps, associated with the
poor coverage of labour regulation and the poor enforcement of existing rules, also
provide fertile soil within which unprotected employment can survive and flourish.
As a result, casual employment can be seen as a form of employment that straddles
the border between the regulated and unregulated sectors. It is half in and half out of
the formal sector.
c) Qualifications and caveats
I refer to casual employment as employment with few standard rights and benefits.
At least three qualifications should be mentioned.
diversity of casual work
First, the fact that casual employment has few rights and benefits does not mean that it
is homogenous in all or even most respects. On the contrary, the fact that casual
employment has so few rights and benefits makes it a highly flexible resource that can
be used by employers in a wide variety of ways. This in turn means great diversity in
the way in which casual employment appears in practice. For example, around two
thirds are part-time (representing approximately 60 percent of all part-time waged
jobs), while the remaining one third are full-time jobs (representing approximately 13
percent of all full-time waged jobs). There is also diversity according to occupation,
sector and industry. Casual work is concentrated in industries such as retail (where 44
per cent of employees were casual on a leave entitlement basis in 2003) and
accommodation, cafes and restaurants industries (59 per cent), but large numbers can
also be found in expanding industries such as property and business services (30
percent) and health and community services (22 percent). Moreover, casual
employment has grown significantly in many industries since 1985, including
manufacturing (from 8 per cent to 17 per cent), and construction (18 to 30 percent)
(see Table 1).
Table 1: Casual employees a) and casual density in industry divisions, 1985-2003
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Mining
Casual
employees
(‘000)
2003
97.2
10.7
Casual density
(%)
1985 b)
38
2
1994
47.6
9.3
2000
56.7
9.2
2003
53.5
14.6
6
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas and water
Construction
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Accommodation, cafes and
restaurants
Transport and storage
Communication services
Finance and insurance
Property and business services
Government administration and
defence
Education
Health and community services
Cultural and recreation services
Personal and other services
Total industries
173.5
8.5
148.9
76.9
553.2
247.3
8
1
18
10
33
50
13.3
*
30.2
14.5
44.0
54.4
15.0
*5.8
31.1
17.8
45.2
57.4
17.1
10.6
30.4
19.5
44.2
58.9
81.3
22.6
35.0
283.9
33.3
10
4
4
19
8
16.9
7.5
6.8
26.9
8.4
23.9
15.0
11.7
31.8
7.7
22.4
14.8
10.8
30.3
8.2
120.9
188.4
84.9
73.5
15
18
30
21
15.9
21.2
44.2
21.4
17.1
21.8
44.1
22.6
17.9
21.9
45.2
25.0
2239.9
16
23.7
27.3
27.6
(a) employees without leave entitlements in their main job
b) figures are rounded to the nearest percent.
* relative standard error greater than 25 per cent.
Source: unpublished 1985 ABS data cited in Reith, 2000, 7; ABS, Trade Union Members Australia,
August 1994, Cat. No. 6325.0; ABS, Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership,
Australia, August 2000, August 2003, Cat. No. 6310.0.
Corresponding to the diversity in jobs is diversity in the social groups that take up the
jobs. Casual work is often loosely identified with part-time casual work, and it is
frequently seen as the special preserve of young workers who are full-time students
and women seeking to balance paid work with family responsibilities. Sometimes it
is suggested that such workers prefer part-time casual work and that casual work is
therefore not really a problem. This view misunderstands the breadth and nature of
casual work. As Table 2 indicates, a substantial part of casual employment is fulltime. Less than half of all casual jobs are part-time jobs occupied by full-time
students and prime-age women (not all of whom will be women with family
responsibilities). It is true that many casual workers stem from these two groups.
However, even in this case, it would be silly to jump to the conclusion that there is a
preference for casual status. Much of the concentration is to be explained in terms of
preferences for reduced hours of paid work rather than in terms of any putative
preference for casual conditions. While many women seek part-time work when they
are caring for dependents, there is no evidence that they desire part-time work under
inferior conditions (Pocock, 2003).
7
Table 2: Casual employees a), Australia, August 2003 (% of all casual
employees)
Full-time casual
Part-time casual
Full-time secondary school students b)
Full-time tertiary students c)
Total full-time students
*
.2
11.6
12.8
24.4
Not full-time students, aged 15-24
7.2
9.0
Women, aged 25-54
6.2
25.1
Men, aged 25-54
12.1
7.0
Older workers, aged 55+
2.4
6.3
Total
Total (‘000 persons)
28.1
(536.1)
71.9
(1371.4)
a)
Employees without leave entitlements in their main job; excluding owner-managers of
incorporated enterprises
b) aged 15-19
c) aged 15-24
Source: unpublished data from ABS, Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership,
August 2003, cat. no. 6310.0.
Similarly, there is also diversity in the patterns of participation in casual work. Some
workers may have a casual job for a brief period of time before moving on to a
permanent job (either in the same occupation or, more commonly, as in the case of
students, in a completely different occupation). However, others may be locked into
casual work for extended periods. Workers can be trapped in either of two ways.
First, they can be trapped in casual labour markets, where they cycle in and out of
short-term casual jobs, spells of unemployment, spells of training, and spells out of
the labour market altogether. Second, they can be trapped in the one casual job for a
lengthy period of time. This second form of entrapment is linked to the fact that
casual jobs in Australia are not always, as in some dictionary definitions, short-term
and irregular. On the contrary, they are often long-term and regular jobs, in which
workers build up lengthy periods of tenure.
This draws attention to one of the most striking aspects of the diversity within casual
employment. It concerns the peculiar phenomenon of what are sometimes called
‘long-term’ (or ‘permanent’ or ‘regular’ or ‘ongoing’) casuals, often counterposed to
short-term (‘irregular’ or ‘true’) casuals. These are used by employers in a long-term,
regular way that is similar to the way in which permanent employees are used. This
phenomenon of long-term casuals is very important, and it stands out as the main way
in which casual status is abused in Australia. However, it is difficult to estimate its
8
precise extent and pattern of growth.2 One familiar measure is in terms of
accumulated tenure. This is not entirely satisfactory, but it does provide a rough
indication. The tenure data show that casual workers have substantially shorter
accumulated tenure than permanent workers (see Table 3). Nevertheless most casual
jobs have lasted longer than one year (and, presumably, some of those with
accumulated tenure of less than one year will also last for a long period before they
are finally terminated). It seems likely that the majority of jobs classified as ‘casual’
in Australia are indeed ‘permanent casual’ jobs, but how big a majority is uncertain.3
Table 3: Length of time with current employer, permanent and casual employees
a) by hours, November 2002 (%)
permanent
Full-time
Casual
Part-time
All casuals
Less than 1 year
Less than 6 months
1 and under 5 years
5 and under 10 years
10 years or more
16.8
8.2
37.7
19.5
26.0
38.4
25.8
33.1
13.2
15.3
40.7
26.5
40.4
10.5
8.3
39.8
26.2
37.5
11.6
11.1
Total (‘000 employees)
5753.1
788.3
1184.6
1972.9
a
Employees ‘with leave entitlements’ and ‘without leave entitlements’ in their main job, excluding
school students aged 15-20 years and persons who worked solely for payment in kind.
Source: ABS, Career Experience Australia November 2002, cat. no. 6254.0.
rights and benefits
Second, the fact that casual employment has few rights and benefits does not mean
that it has no rights and benefits. At least in the effectively regulated sector, casual
employees will be subject to basic standards, eg for occupational health and safety,
defined as applicable to all employees. Moreover, primarily as a result of policy
initiatives over the past few years, some casual employees have begun to acquire
rights and benefits. This is particularly the case for some ‘long-term’ casuals who are
able to establish continuity of service beyond threshold periods, eg twelve months or
2
Murtough and Waite (2000) make an intense effort to generate an estimate of the relative weight of
these two groups. They suggest that the group of ‘true casuals’ made up 11.3 percent of all employed
persons (or 14.2 percent of all employees, excluding owner-managers) in 1998. The remaining 10
percent or so that are normally counted as ‘casuals’ are designated as ‘ongoing casuals’.
Unfortunately, the criteria used to distinguish the two groups are not convincing (Campbell and
Burgess, 2001b, 94-96).
3
Other indications can be derived from questions in different ABS surveys. One question in a special
ABS survey in 2000 (ABS cat. no. 6361, April to June 2000) asked about the pattern of working in the
main job. Some 43.4 percent of self-identified casuals stated that they did ‘casual or relief work’, but
just as many stated that they worked a set number of days each week or each fortnight. A later
question on regular hours found that some two thirds (66.8 percent) of self-identified casuals worked
regular hours.
9
twenty-four months. For example, many now have limited entitlements to unpaid
parental leave and to protection against unfair dismissal.
the casual loading
Third, it is common for defenders of the Australian system to concede that casual
workers may indeed have few rights and benefits. But they often go on to stress that
casual workers receive a ‘casual loading’ on their hourly rate of pay, which can be
seen as in effect a monetary equivalent or ‘cashing out’ of their rights and benefits. It
is often concluded that this is an attractive choice for many employees, that casual
employees are well-paid, and that no real disadvantages can be associated with casual
employment.
It is true that the casual loading, where it is paid, does cushion the disadvantages of
casual status and that it is likely to be appreciated by casual workers. However, the
common claims about the significance of the casual loading are naïve and overlook
several points. One fundamental issue concerns the legitimacy and effectiveness of
cashing out standard rights and benefits. It may be possible to monetize benefits, but
how is it possible to monetize rights? Can this be a fair exchange, given the power of
employers in labour market transactions? Does the money in fact provide equivalent
protection? More broadly, it is important to point out that not all casual workers
receive the casual loading. Certainly those in the zone of effective regulation will
receive it in some form, but both those in the sphere where award provisions are
evaded as well as those outside of award regulation are unlikely to receive it. How
many receive the casual loading? There are no reliable figures, but early data from
ABS irregular surveys suggest that only around half of all casuals believe that they
receive a loading (Campbell, 2000, 73; Campbell, 1996, 579-582). Even for those
who do receive it, another question concerns whether the casual loading does in fact
compensate for foregone benefits. This is partly to do with the familiar calculations
of what a foregone benefit is worth, as it has been argued out in recent cases before
the industrial relations tribunals. But also important is the question of the comparison
point for assessing the value of the extra pay provided by the loading. The
comparable permanent worker who allegedly earns less than the casual is often just a
theoretical fiction, which bears little relation to practical reality. In heavily casualised
occupations and workplaces, such a comparable permanent worker may be hard to
find. Alternatively, the casual may receive a loading defined according to one award,
but the comparable permanent worker may be in receipt of a much higher over-award
or collective agreement rate or s/he may be under a different award.4 Similarly, the
casual may receive a loading on the base classification but the comparable permanent
worker may have proceeded much further up the salary and classification scale.
Given these factors, it is no surprise that the raw data indicate that hourly wages of
casuals, far from standing well above, fall well below the hourly wages of permanent
workers (Watson, 2004).
d) Disadvantages of casual work
4
This is a familiar practice in labour hire arrangements. Casual workers supplied through labour hire
may receive a casual loading according to some award, but the worker alongside whom they are
working may be paid a different and much higher rate according to a different award or agreement.
10
What has been said so far helps to describe the disadvantages of casual work. These
start from the common lack of rights and benefits. The precise extent of the
disadvantages associated with the job vary, but – in addition to the lack of almost all
standard leave entitlements – they typically include low hourly rates of pay, low and
irregular earnings, reduced employment security, lack of access to notice and
severance pay, reduced access to unfair dismissal rights, vulnerability to changes in
schedules, loss of skill- and age-related pay increments, and lack of representational
rights. Though some long term casuals may have formal rights to call on the
termination jurisdictions, many do not, or cannot practically exercise such rights
given their weak workplace power. The fact that some casual employees receive a
casual loading on the hourly rate of pay may cushion some of these disadvantages, but
it is unlikely to compensate for all. The disadvantages of casual status are not just
related to the lack of standard rights and benefits. They extend into the more diffuse
area of exposure to heightened risk in practice.
One particular feature of casual employment in Australia is the size of the shortfall in
protection that casual workers experience in comparison with standard permanent
workers. This shortfall is large, spanning numerous features of the employment
relationship. It defines a potent cocktail of advantages for employers, if they are able
to deploy casual workers in place of permanent workers. The advantages can include:
 cheaper labour costs;
 greater ease of dismissal;
 ability to match labour-time to fluctuations in workload;
 administrative convenience; and
 enhanced control.
The size of the shortfall and the breadth of these advantages help to undermine the
stability of the employment structure in Australia. They establish a dynamic that,
given the right economic and political conditions, fuels the substitution of casual work
in place of permanent work.
The disadvantages of casual status can have a severe effect on employees, especially
when employees are trapped in such jobs for lengthy periods (Smith and Ewer, 1999).
The disadvantages for employees can in turn affect families, communities, and the
larger society as insecurity and other effects spill beyond the individual worker
(Pocock, 2003). The problems caused by casual employment are most severe for
‘long-term’ casual employees. It is in this case that the disadvantages of casual
employment threaten to have the most powerful long-term effect on employees. At
the same time, this is the form of casual employment that is most clearly an abuse of
the category of ‘casual’. Its use by employers cannot be related to any compelling
need for labour to meet short-term, irregular needs. Instead it is most frequently used
as a simple equivalent to standard ‘permanent’ employment. In effect, casual status is
being used – or more correctly abused – in order to evade the rights and benefits
associated with standard employment.
2. How does casual employment compare?
In pursuing a cross-national perspective on casual work three approaches can be used.
We can look in other countries for categories of employment called ‘casual’. Or we
11
can link up with the international discussion of ‘temporary’ work. Or we can look for
a substantive equivalent to casual work, irrespective of the label.
a) Looking for ‘casual’
The first approach involves looking for forms of employment called ‘casual’ in other
countries. This is the least successful and least useful approach. A category of
‘casual’ is hard to find in most OECD countries. It sometimes appears in European
data and discussion as a minor sub-category of temporary employment, but it is
generally a tiny phenomenon that barely registers in the statistics and in the discussion
(Meulders, Plasman and Plasman, 1994; Delsen, 1995). In their review of EU data,
Meulders, Plasman and Plasman (1994, 73) define casual employment as ‘temporary
employment characterized by its irregular nature’, and they summarise the fragmentary
evidence in national data sets on its incidence.
Regulation in many countries provides for day-labourers doing very short-term
occasional work, such as unloading a truck or repairing a fence, to be exempt from
basic requirements such as paid leave. However, these are not always called ‘casual’.
A category of ‘on-call work’ is used in some countries, eg the United States, Canada,
the Netherlands and Korea (OECD, 2002, 134). More recently, figures for
‘employees working on call’ have been cited for EU countries. It is explained that
this means “that they have no guarantee of work for a fixed number of hours, but that
they may be called into work by the employer and must report to work at short
notice”. According to this report, on-call work prevails in services, particularly in the
trade, transport, hotels and restaurant sector. It accounted for only 1.4 percent of all
employees in the EU in 2001 (Van Bastelaer and Vaguer, 2004).
Only two countries seem to have a category of ‘casual’ that seems in any way
prominent in the employment structure – the United Kingdom (UK) and New
Zealand. This is not entirely surprising since these are the two countries are the
closest to Australia in terms of regulatory history. However, in both cases we can see
major differences that complicate any comparison.
A shared legal heritage produces several parallels between the United Kingdom and
Australia. Casey (1988, 95-109) points to the similar legal definition of ‘casual’ in
the United Kingdom and the exclusion of such workers from standard employment
benefits. He also points out that such employment is compatible with a degree of
regularity and continuing employment. Indeed the familiar Australianism of ‘regular
casual’ can also be found in the UK legal discussion (eg Burchell, Deakin and Honey,
1999, 8). However, there seem to be two major differences. First is the difference in
extent. Data for the United Kingdom suggest that ‘casual workers’ constituted
approximately 1.5 per cent of the employed labour force through the 1990s, with the
highest concentration occurring in hotels and restaurants (where the proportion of
casual workers reached around 6 per cent) (Purcell and Purcell, 1997; Burchell, Deakin
and Honey, 1999, 23). Another major difference stems from the fact that under UK
case law, where one of the tests of employee status involves ‘mutuality of obligation’,
such workers are sometimes seen as self-employed rather than as employees with a
contract of employment (Burchell, Deakin and Honey, 1999).
12
New Zealand has a parallel industrial history to Australia, including the development
of an award system and the development of award provisions for casual employment
(and indeed a similar history of ‘labour market deregulation’ in the 1990s). Awards
often included casual clauses that defined casuals loosely, provided for premiums and
imposed controls such as restrictions on length of engagement. As a result, New
Zealand has long had ‘casual employees’; it has ‘regular casuals’; and it even has a
casual loading (Ferguson, 1997; see Anderson, Brosnan and Walsh, 1994, 498-499).
This tradition continued after the 1991 changes. Unfortunately data on the size of the
casual workforce are sparse, and there is little case-study research to fill the gaps in
knowledge (but see Whatman, Harvey and Hill, 1999). A survey in 1995 by Brosnan
and Walsh (Brosnan and Walsh, 1996; Allan et al, 2001) produced an estimate for
casual employees of around five percent, but a Department of Labour survey in 1997
suggested the figure was eleven percent (Tucker, 2002, 21). The definition used in
the former survey was “employees hired on a periodic basis as need arises”, and it
may be that the definition used in the later survey was different. Whatever the precise
extent, it is clear that casual workers represent a sizeable proportion of the workforce.
The parallel with Australia is `strong. However, it is possible to note two main
differences. First, though substantial, casual work in New Zealand is not as
substantial as in Australia.5 Second, and most important, the shortfall in rights and
benefits suffered by casuals in New Zealand is not nearly as sharp as in Australia.
The main source of the difference stems from the fact that casuals in New Zealand are
explicitly included in entitlements to most forms of paid leave, which are defined in
statute as applicable to all employees. One key piece of legislation was the Holidays
Act 1981, but this has recently been replaced by a new Holidays Act 2003, which
came into operation on April 1, 2004. This Act specifies eleven public holidays,
three weeks paid annual leave (after 12 months employment) and 5 days special leave
(after 6 months employment). This, and other pieces of legislation outlining a set of
minimum employment standards, specifically include casual employees. They may
still present problems of access for casual employees, in particular because of
administrative or practical difficulties, the impact of qualifying conditions such as
tenure, lack of bargaining power, lack of knowledge, and legislative boundary issues.
But they dramatically narrow the shortfall in rights and benefits in comparison with
permanent employees and thereby lessen the incentive for employers to substitute
casual for permanent employees…
As the above discussion indicates, one reason this approach is not very useful is to do
with the deceptiveness of appealing to a common label of ‘casual’. The term has
different meanings in different countries. There is not yet a common definition. An
official review by labour statisticians recommends a common definition of casual
workers as “workers who have an explicit or implicit contract of employment which
is not expected to continue for more than a short period, whose duration is to be
determined by national circumstances” (ILO, 1993, xxii). In most countries, the
category of ‘casual’ refers only to cases of short-term employment to meet
exceptional or irregular work demands, traditionally concentrated in industries such as
agriculture or construction. In other words it refers to a group of what can be called
5
The 1995 survey was also held in Australia at the same time, using similar definitions. The results
indicated that ‘casual work’ in this definition was twice as prevalent in Australia as in New Zealand
(Allan et al, 2001, 257)
13
‘short-term’ casuals. On the other hand, the Australian usage is broader, referring not
only to ‘short-term’ casuals but also to an important group of ‘long-term’ casuals.
b) Linking up with the discussion of ‘temporary’
The second approach involves comparing ‘casual’ work in Australia with ‘temporary’
work in other countries. This is a familiar approach, often found in the Australian
literature. It has some merits. It allows access to labour force data in other countries,
which often deploy the category of ‘temporary’, and it allows access to the extensive
secondary literature on temporary work. There are analogies and overlaps that link
the two categories of ‘casual’ and ‘temporary’. However, there are also pitfalls in
taking this approach, and it is necessary to be aware of the difficulties in order to draw
correct conclusions from the results of any comparison.
This approach can be traced back to OECD labour market statistics, which show the
extent and growth of ‘temporary’ work, based on data for ‘temporary’ workers in
several countries as well as data for ‘casual’ workers in Australia (OECD, 1996, 8).
These data are often cited in Australian discussions, and they are the source of claims
that Australia ranks second to Spain in international comparisons. For example, in
Australia at Work, ACIRRT (1999, 140) drew on these statistics to argue that the
growth and extent of temporary employment in Australia
has outstripped all other OECD countries (for which comparable data are
available) except for Spain… temporary employment in Australia rose from
16 to 24 per cent between 1983 and 1994. This occurred at a time when most
other OECD countries were keeping their levels of temporary employment
stable.
In this perspective, common pressures towards the expansion of temporary
employment exist, but Australia, together with just a few other countries such as
Spain, stand out by virtue of the extent to which they have succumbed to these
pressures.
These statistics offer a reasonable starting point for discussion (for an updated
version, focusing just on European countries, see Table 4). As Campbell and Burgess
(2001a) argue, there is a reasonable degree of overlap between the category of
‘temporary’ and the category of ‘casual’. ‘Temporary’ is conventionally seen as a
synonym for non-permanent waged work. In this approach, waged work is grouped
into two main categories – ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’, with the latter comprising
varied forms of waged work that diverge in some way from the model of ‘permanent’
and that suffer a shortfall in entitlements in comparison with permanent employment.
The precise forms of temporary employment vary from country to country, but they
typically include fixed-term contracts, employment with temporary work agencies,
seasonal employment, casual employment and certain types of government
employment and training schemes (OECD, 1991, 46).6
6
In his book on non-standard employment, Mangan (2000, 23, see also 29) seems to take a similar
position:
The term ‘temporary worker’ would seem a reasonably common and easily understood
concept. The distinguishing feature of temporary workers is their lack of permanency. This
lack of permanency can be explicitly acknowledged and occurs over a mutually agreed period
such as within a fixed-term contract. Alternatively it can be open-ended as within some
‘casual’ employees in Australia; totally random and demand-driven as with on-call workers in
14
Table 4: Temporary employees as a proportion of total employees in selected
OECD countries, 1983, 1994, 1998 and 2002
1983
1994
1998
2002
Australia a)
15.6
23.5
26.9
27.3
Belgium
Denmark
Finland b)
France
Germany c)
Greece d)
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal e)
Spain f)
Sweden f)
United Kingdom
5.4
12.5
11.3
3.3
10.0
16.2
6.1
6.6
3.2
5.8
14.4
15.7
12.0
5.5
5.1
12.0
13.5
11.0
10.3
10.3
9.4
7.3
2.9
10.9
9.4
33.7
13.5
6.5
7.8
10.1
17.7
13.9
12.3
13.0
7.7
8.5
2.9
12.7
17.4
32.9
12.9
7.1
7.6
8.9
17.3
14.1
12.0
11.3
5.3
9.9
4.3
14.3
21.8
31.2
15.7
6.1
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
1984, 1994, 1998 and 2002
1982, 1993, 1998 and 2002
1984, 1994, 1998 and 2002. Data for 1984 are for West Germany
Due to a definitional change in 1992, the data for 1994 and 1998 are not strictly comparable with
1983
1986, 1994, 1998 and 2002. Due to a definitional change the data for 1994 and 1998 are not
strictly comparable with 1986
1987, 1994 , 1998 and 2002
Source: Figures in the first two columns are from the OECD report (1996: 8). Figures in the third and
fourth columns are from official labour force data for Australia (ABS Employee Earnings, Benefits and
Trade Union Membership Australia, Cat. No. 6310.0) and Europe (Eurostat 1999, 2003).
This definition of ‘temporary’ clearly overlaps with the category of ‘casual’ in
Australia. As noted above, ‘casual’ is the largest category of non-permanent waged
work in Australia. However, it is not the only type of non-permanent work. Strictly
defined, if we are to get a closer approximation to the category of ‘temporary’ it
would be necessary to supplement the figures for casual work with the figures for
other types of non-permanent waged work. This is what Campbell and Burgess
(2001a) do in their analysis, thereby reaching an estimate for total ‘temporary’
employment in Australia of around 33 percent of all waged work. As a result,
Australia is placed at the very top of OECD rankings, on a level roughly equivalent to
Spain. It is possible to update the procedure of Campbell and Burgess with better data
(Table 5). Adding together the categories of fixed-term (4.2 percent), self-identified
casual (23.3 percent), and other (2.3 percent), we reach a figure for total temporary
the US or aruabito workers in Japan or it may mean regular but periodic working
arrangements such as with seasonal workers…
15
employment in Australia in 2000 of around 29.8 percent of all waged work. 7 This is
still near the top of OECD rankings, though it is now slightly below Spain.
Table 5: Selected types of employee a), as a proportion of all employees, Australia,
April to June 2000 (%)
P
F
C
O
Total
Full-time b)
Part-time b)
60.5
9.7
3.5
.7
5.4
17.9
1.3
1.0
70.7
29.3
Total
70.2
4.2
23.3
2.3
100.0
(6843.7)
a) excluding owner-managers of incorporated enterprises
b) ‘full-time job’ - 35 or more usual hours worked each week in main job; ‘part-time job’ – 1-34 usual
hours worked each week in main job
Key: P – employees with leave entitlements not working on a fixed-term contract; F – employees with
leave entitlements working on a fixed-term contract; C – self-identified casuals; O – employees without
leave entitlements who did not identify as casual.
Source: ABS, Employment Arrangements and Superannuation, Australia, April to June 2000, cat. No.
6361.0
This comparison based on labour force data has been caught up in a debate on the
definition of ‘temporary’ work, the details of which need not concern us here (see
Appendix 1). In this report I start from casual work in Australia and how it compares;
I am not so much concerned with fitting the Australian case into the category of
‘temporary’.
It is clear that though the comparison through temporary work has certain advantages,
it is ultimately unsatisfactory. It risks misunderstanding and indeed understating the
peculiarity of the Australian case. We can see some of the difficulties if we look
more closely at the comparison between Spain and Australia. The rapid pace of
expansion of temporary employment in Spain and its current prominence in the
workforce seems to bear some similarities to the experience of casualisation in
Australia. But there are several crucial points of difference.
The main form of temporary employment in Spain, as in other EU countries, is fixedterm employment. Fixed-term employees suffer a deficit or shortfall in protection in
comparison to permanent employees. However, the conditions of fixed-term
employees are generally carefully regulated, and the shortfall in protection tends to be
confined to just one or two aspects of the employment relationship. The main
difference centres on the absence of employment security as a consequence of the
limited duration of the employment. Consequently, the dualistic divide between
7
Separate estimates from the same survey suggest that 1.4 percent of all employees fitted a definition
of temporary agency workers, ie they found a job through an employment agency and were paid by that
employment agency. Most would be included in this table in the categories of ‘self-identified casual’
and ‘employees without leave entitlements who did not identify as casual’.
16
permanent and non-permanent employment is relatively narrow, and the disparity in
conditions remains moderate (Schömann, Rogowski and Kruppe, 1998; Vielle and
Walthery, 2003). By contrast, as noted above, the distinction between casual and
permanent employment in Australia spans a range of dimensions, extending well
beyond employment protection. Whereas permanent employees enjoy a range of
rights and benefits, casual employees enjoy almost none. Thus the shortfall in
protection suffered by casual employees is large, and the dualistic divide in the
employment structure appears wide. Consequently, there are good reasons to assume
that the conditions of casual employees will be more diverse and, in most
circumstances, markedly more precarious. In short, irrespective of any formal
parallel, the substance of the category of fixed-term employment in Spain differs in
crucial ways from the substance of the category of casual employment in Australia.
Casual work appears as a much more degraded form of employment.
The difference in substance is related to a difference in dynamics. The growth of
fixed-term employment in Spain, as in France and the Netherlands, was an intended
outcome of regulatory changes introduced in the 1980s and 1990s, often as a
concession to arguments about labour market rigidities. In general, the aim was to
promote fixed-term employment as an avenue for employers to gain increased
flexibility in the face of what was seen as overly strong employment protection for
employees on a permanent contract of employment (Toharia and Malo, 2000;
Schömann, Rogowski and Kruppe, 1998; OECD, 2002). Whatever the merits of these
arguments about the need to help employers gain increased flexibility, the dynamic of
growth is clearly different in the case of casual employment in Australia. The
expansion of casual employment in Australia has been an unintended process, largely
unrelated to any specific regulatory changes. Changes to labour regulation
(‘deregulation’) in the 1990s undoubtedly widened the gaps within which casual
employment has flourished, but it was not responsible for creating the gaps (Campbell
and Brosnan, 1999, 360-362, 371-374; Campbell and Burgess, 2001a). Most
importantly, though it is clear that casual employment has many advantages for
employers in comparison with permanent employment, a gap in terms of employment
protection is not the most salient one. Indeed, several studies point to the fact that
employment protection for regular employees in Australia is amongst the weakest in
the OECD (OECD, 1999, 54-59).
c) Looking for a substantive equivalent, irrespective of the label
The third approach involves looking for an equivalent to casual work, irrespective of
its label. Here we need to look at the substance of casual work and to see what is
similar in substance in other countries. This approach is more difficult than the two
previous approaches. It is necessary to dig deeper and to interpret more carefully the
varied forms of employment. However, it is the best approach, since it promises to
get closest to a comprehensive description of the peculiarities of casual work in
Australia
Casual employment is employment with very few rights and benefits. The task is to
look for similar forms of employment in other OECD countries. It is quickly apparent
that Australia is indeed highly unusual. We can sum this up through three steps in the
argument.
17
i) most casual work is in effect proscribed in most countries
The central difference between Australia and other OECD countries derives from the
principles laid down in labour regulation. In most other OECD countries it is not
possible legally to deprive employees of so many standard rights and benefits. 8
Casual work in the form we know it in Australia is regarded in most other countries as
inappropriate, and it is in effect proscribed in law. The proscription is generally
indirect, by virtue of legal provisions to ensure that all employees are entitled to the
standard rights and benefits that casual employees so conspicuously lack. As a result,
the space for casual work to exist as an official, legally-permitted form of
employment is squeezed out.
It is difficult to confirm this point for all countries and for all rights and benefits. But
we can test relatively easily for one of the major standard entitlements - paid annual
leave. In Australia casual employees, constituting around 25 percent of all
employees, have no entitlement to paid annual leave. It is difficult to find any other
country where this is possible to such a significant extent. In most OECD countries a
minimum entitlement to paid annual leave is prescribed in statute for almost all
employees (though the length can vary, and in certain cases there can be qualifying
conditions). Such leave is recognized as vital in order to give employees the
opportunity to recuperate from labour and to enjoy leisure opportunities with family
and friends.
As already noted above, paid annual leave for all employees is characteristic of New
Zealand, and it explains part of the contrast between casual work in Australia and
casual work in New Zealand. The requirement is also widespread in Europe. It has
long been a feature of social protection in most European countries, and it has
recently been extended to all countries in the European Union (EU) as a result of the
impact of the 1993 Working-time Directive. This Directive includes, amongst its
more familiar provisions on maximum hours, a provision for a minimum of three
weeks paid annual leave for all employees covered by the Directive (and a ban on
‘cashing out’ such leave, except where the employment is terminated – see Article 7)
(EIRR, 1994). Statutory minima in individual countries are generally even more
generous, and the levels of paid annual leave established in collective bargaining are
more generous again. The average entitlement to paid annual leave across the EU and
Norway currently stands at 26.5 days (Carley, 2004).
Until recently the United Kingdom was the single European country, in which there
was no statutory requirement for all employees to be given paid annual leave. This
fitted in with a traditional aversion to statutory regulation and a preference for
voluntary collective bargaining as the path for establishing employment rights and
benefits (Edwards et al., 1998). As a result, a significant group of employees at the
bottom of the labour market were employed without an entitlement to paid annual
leave (around 3.5 percent of full-time employees and around 34 percent of part-time
employees – see Green, 1997: 248). These employees could be seen as analogous to
casual workers in Australia. However, this limited parallel has been recently removed
as a result of policy initiatives. In order to conform to the Working-Time Directive,
8
It is for this reason that visiting labour law scholars are often startled at the legal situation of casual
workers (eg Bieback, 1992).
18
the UK Labour government introduced legislation, the Working Time Regulations
1998, which extended paid annual leave (initially three weeks and then four weeks
from November 1999) to almost all employees who passed a 13 week qualifying
period (EIRR, 1998). There is widespread agreement that the provision for paid
annual leave was effective, and it has been widely cited as the major benefit for
employees achieved by this legislation. Acording to an early DTI evaluation of
twenty organizations (Neathey and Arrowsmith, 2001, 45-47), most organizations
were already providing paid holidays in excess of the new statutory minimum.
However, two companies, a security company and a hospitality company, were
obliged to increase their holiday entitlement, and two companies were obliged to
abolish the practice of buying-out of holidays. The process of accommodation to the
new requirements was seen as smooth, though there were some difficulties in dealing
with the small group of ‘casual workers, in particular the ‘on-call’ or ‘zero hours’
workers. The legislation subsequently ran into one minor difficulty. The 13-week
qualifying period was challenged in the courts, and the government was obliged to
amend the legislation so that the entitlement to annual leave, including the right to
compensation for any untaken leave, now begins from the first day of employment. A
follow-up study to the initial DTI evaluation found several organizations that had to
adjust their holiday provision to take these new rules into account (Neathey, 2003). It
also found several different methods for dealing with workers who were only called in
when they were needed (Neathey, 2003, 24-25).
ii) but casual work can still exist in certain forms
This is not to say that casual employment, in the sense of employment with few rights
and benefits, is completely absent in other OECD countries. It may still be permitted
in small amounts. As noted above, regulation in some countries may provide for
exemption from paid leave for day-labourers doing short-term occasional work. More
indirectly, employment with few rights and benefits may emerge as a result of the
existence of qualifying conditions that limit employee access to rights and benefits.
The two most important are thresholds in terms of accumulated tenure and conditions
in terms of number of weekly hours (or weekly wages). Most countries are aware of
the effect of such qualifying conditions in creating gaps in social protection, and the
rationale for such limits are usually scrutinised carefully. Nevertheless, in some
countries the impact can be large (OECD, 2002, 144-150). In the case of tenure
thresholds, employees at the very beginning of their employment with one employer
may appear to have only a few rights and benefits. For example, for many years
protection against dismissal for employees in the United Kingdom was limited in the
first two years of service with an employer (this has recently been reduced to one
year).
So far we have been talking about legally permitted forms of employment without
rights and benefits. But such employment can also survive, often in much larger
proportions, in the form of illegal work. The size of the illegal or informal sector is
difficult to estimate. But it is likely to be significant in all OECD countries and very
significant in a few. For example, estimates of the size of the informal economy in
Spain in the mid-1980s ranged from 22 to 30 percent of employment (Cousins, 1999,
104). Perhaps the major form of illegality in this area is the evasion by employers of
legal obligations to extend rights and benefits to their employees. This is a major
concern in most countries, and it has provoked several regulatory initiatives.
19
A related issue concerns the sharpness of the boundary between ‘employee’ and nonemployee’. Employment rights and benefits are often prescribed only for employees,
while the self-employed are left to fend for themselves through their capacity to
negotiate commercial contracts. But this division can provide a powerful incentive
for evasion through the development of forms of ‘disguised wage labour’ or ‘fake
self-employment’. As a result, if care is not taken, forms of employment with few
rights and benefits that are functionally equivalent to casual work can begin to
flourish at the boundary between employee and non-employee status. This is also a
major concern in most countries, and it has led to suggestions and initiatives such as
the broadening of social protection to a new category of ‘workers’ and not just
‘employees’.
iii) what about the United States?
The United States is sometimes cited as a country where it is possible to find a
situation that is at least superficially analogous to Australia, in the sense of the
existence of a large minority of jobs with few standard rights and benefits. Standard
employment benefits are unevenly distributed amongst employees in the US, and
many workers lack such basic entitlements as paid vacations, paid holidays, and paid
sick leave (Rosenberg and Lapidus, 1999). This looks somewhat similar to the
phenomenon of casual work in Australia. The parallel I strong, but some differences
remain.
Lack of employment benefits are found in some sectors in the US that could be called
‘temporary’, eg in alternative work arrangements such as ‘on-call employees’ and
‘temporary help agency workers’.9 These workers are much less likely than
permanent workers to have employment benefits such as health insurance coverage
and eligibility for employer-provided pension plan (Contingent and Alternative
Employment Arrangements, Feb. 2001). A nationally representative survey of private
sector establishments from the Upjohn Institute in 1995 (Houseman, 2001) showed
that the lack of benefits for these workers was decisive in making their hourly cost
cheaper. This in turn was likely to be an important factor in explaining employer
decisions to use such workers.
However, alternative work arrangements are not the main site of lack of benefits in
the US. The two groups cited above are small, accounting for only 1.6 percent and
0.9 percent of total employment in 2001 (Contingent and Alternative Employment
Arrangements, Feb. 2001).
The main site concerns employees in so-called
‘traditional’ or ‘permanent’ employment, who – in sharp contrast to every other
OECD country – frequently lack employment benefits. The data are patchy, but
limited figures exist for entitlements to paid vacations, paid holidays and paid sick
leave from an employer survey. Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) figures from the
mid-1990s suggest that 23 percent (12 percent of full-time and 64 percent of part-time
employees) of employees in the US did not receive paid vacations (Foster, 1998: 59).
9
I concentrate here just on the formal sector. There is also an extensive informal sector in the US,
founded on the uncertain status of the large number of immigrants, especially from countries to the
south such as Mexico and Guatemala. This is important for phenomena such as the hiring sites for day
labourers in the large cities (Valenzuela, 2003).
20
A recent review (Wiatrowski, 2004) suggests that there has been little change since
then. A steady 23 percent of employees are not entitled to paid vacations.
The US situation undoubtedly resembles the situation in Australia. The size of the
group of employees without entitlement to paid vacations is almost as large as the size
of the group of casual employees in Australia. It is true that, in contrast to Australia,
there is no evidence of expansion in the period since the late 1980s and the pattern of
growth seems steady. Moreover, it is also important not to overlook the differences as
a result of the quite different regulatory histories and the different structure of
entitlements for employees. The US appears as the one major advanced capitalist
society that failed to erect a solid platform of minimum labour standards for
employees. As such the wages and conditions of employees in the US are structured
in a continuous spectrum, at the bottom end of which there can be a startling absence
of any rights and benefits (even an absence of wages!). This is different to Australia
(and other OECD countries), where the problem we are considering is linked to
dualism in the employment structure, marked by a fundamental division between
permanent employment, which is the site of an array of rights and benefits, and the
varied forms of non-permanent (‘temporary’) employment, which experience a
shortfall in rights and benefits. These differences are important because they shape
the effectiveness of possible policy initiative to improve conditions for workers with
few rights and benefits.
3. Summary
What do these comparisons suggest? They underline what most scholars have long
argued – that casual employment and casualisation in Australia are indeed highly
unusual phenomena.
The above discussion helps us to define more precisely the aspects of the Australian
situation that appear most unusual. Four aspects stand out.
 First is the extent of the shortfall in rights and benefits experienced by casual
workers in comparison with permanent workers. Like most OECD countries –
though with the exception of the US – Australia has a dualistic employment
structure that distinguishes permanent waged work from non-permanent
waged work. But because of the conditions associated with casual status the
dualistic divide appears particularly sharp in Australia.
 The second point concerns the sheer size of the casual workforce. The
existence of such a large group of employees, spread in all parts of the
employment structure and deprived of most standard rights and benefits,
would seem to pose a major threat to the stability of this employment
structure.
 A third aspect that stands out is the existence of ‘long-term’ casual workers.
This group appears completely anomalous in cross-national comparison.
Insofar as similar groups exist in other countries, they are likely to be confined
to the illegal or informal sector. This group represents the main example of
the abuse of the category of ‘casual’ and it is possibly the main challenge for
research and policy in Australia.
 The fourth point concerns the existence of the other group of ‘short-term’
casuals. Though it is possible to find parallel examples in other OECD
21
countries, the number of such workers seems much larger in Australia than in
other countries. This group also presents a challenge for research and policy.
Most OECD societies are grappling with important dilemmas concerning economic
development, labour regulation and the need for diverse forms of employment to meet
both employer and employee needs. But most draw the line at casual work. Beyond a
very short-term duration of a few days, casual work is regarded in most other OECD
countries as an inappropriate form of non-permanent waged work. It is in effect
indirectly proscribed, as a result of the development of provisions for all employees to
have access to standard benefits such as paid annual leave and paid sick leave. Such
benefits are seen as necessary for decent human life in a prosperous modern society.
Nor is there much pressure for a move away from this position. There is little
evidence of any debate on opening up more opportunities for workers to be deprived
of benefits such as paid annual leave or for such benefits to be ‘cashed out’. The
Australian example of casual work and casualisation seems to hold few attractions
anywhere else in the world. This does not mean that other OECD countries are
suffering from chronic labour market rigidities. On the contrary, there is ample
evidence in other OECD countries of high levels of success in creating dynamic and
prosperous economies. Employer needs for flexibility are amply met either through
permanent employment or through forms of temporary employment, such as fixedterm employment, that are judged appropriate to a modern economy and society.
These distinctive features of the Australian situation point to a strong conclusion. Not
only is the Australian situation unusual, but it is also unnecessary and unwelcome.
International comparisons suggest that casual work and casualisation do indeed
constitute a significant labour market problem.
4. Policy initiatives
Cross-national comparisons can help in policy design. It is increasingly clear that
policy initiatives to deal with the problem of casualisation are necessary in Australia.
The current federal government seems stuck in a rather outdated position inherited
from the 1980s. They see the issue strictly in terms of the quantity of labour
regulation – less or more, a heavy or a light touch. As such they appeal – at least in
principle – to a ‘hands-off’ policy, inspired by conventional neoliberal principles. In
responding to concerns about casualisation, a recent official report (Australian
Government, 2003, 16) declares that “the philosophy of the Australian government is
to encourage all forms of employment and not create disincentives for some over
others”. This ignores the crucial issue of the legitimacy of casual employment. It is a
form of employment that denies employees standard rights and benefits and that is
widely regarded in many countries as illegitimate. As such, a philosophy of
discrimination would seem to be more appropriate as a starting point.
There is no space here for a discussion of possible policy initiatives in response to the
problem of casual work and casualisation (see Pocock, Buchanan and Campbell,
2004). However, it is useful to conclude by sketching out some of the thinking in
other countries around policy initiatives to deal with changing labour markets. There
are of course no easy solutions that can be transferred from other countries to
Australia. Each country has distinct features. Nevertheless, even if the problem is not
22
as stark as in Australia, many OECD countries are confronting dilemmas in how to
respond to the issue of employment with few rights and benefits. The dilemmas are
partly to do with which regulatory path to take. But they also derive from the clash of
different interests and the overlap of aims. Protection and security for individual
workers must remain a central aim. The demands from employers for increased
flexibility are also important. Though by no means the same, there are also new
demands for employee-oriented flexibility and expanded choice.
Most OECD countries are striving to reconcile these divergent social interests. It may
be that we can learn most from our trans-Tasman neighbour, New Zealand, which
shares a parallel history in terms of labour regulation and forms of employment. New
Zealand appears to have imposed control over a very similar phenomenon of casual
employment, primarily by ensuring that casual employees share with permanent
employees similar entitlements to paid leave and other rights.
However, also illuminating is the extensive effort to rethink labour regulation in
Europe. One key word that signals this effort is ‘flexicurity’ (Wilthagen and Tros,
2004). This theme has been taken up in particular in the Netherlands, where the
Flexibility and Security Act of 1999 set out the principles (van Oorschot, 2004), and in
Denmark, where security for employees has long been seen as the key to mobility
and flexibility in labour markets (Madsen, 2003, 2004).
In wrestling with the challenges posed by the growth of precarious forms of
employment, European countries are seeking to ensure that:
 certain forms are encouraged and others discouraged (or indeed proscribed);
 quality of employment is maintained and improved;
 wages and conditions do not diverge too much from standard employment;
 employee choice is given an adequate role;
 there is no lasting disadvantage associated with the choice of particular forms
of employment;
 mobility between forms of employment is fostered; and
 standard employment is not crowded out.
In responding to casualisation, the first aim listed above is perhaps the most
important. However, given that it would be both difficult and unwise to move
immediately towards a comprehensive proscription in Australia, it is also worth
examining the general principles used in regulating other forms of temporary work in
other countries. This may help in developing principles of regulation that can
supplement a move towards tighter limits on the misuse of the category of casual.
In general, regulation of appropriate forms of temporary employment traditionally
involves three main approaches:
 first, restrictions/ limits on both the extent and the method of use of these
forms of employment;
 second, specification of the precise difference in protection between these
forms of employment and the core category of full-time permanent
employment (ie specifications of what rights and benefits are shared and what
are missing); and
23

third, prescription of compensation for workers in these forms of employment
(in exchange for the disadvantages that they encounter).
In most countries, restrictions and limits – including complete bans – have been the
main tool. The second approach has also been extensively used as a supplement, but
the third approach has traditionally been viewed with some suspicion, as veering
dangerously towards a ‘cashing out’ of rights and benefits that could puncture holes in
the floor of labour standards. In short, the traditional tendency has been to impose
general restrictions in order to protect permanent employment. This in turn provoked
criticisms aimed at releasing restrictions in order to allow employers a greater choice
of employment forms.
Protecting permanent employment remains an important aim, but newer approaches
have tended to pay attention to the need to also protect temporary employees
(Letourneux, 1998; OECD, 2002). As such they move away from a perspective that
looks just to restrictions. Instead, they adopt a more discriminating attitude towards
different forms of temporary employment. There is a widespread recognition that the
advantages and disadvantages of different forms of temporary employment vary and
that this justifies both different levels of restriction and different efforts to minimize
the disadvantages of specific forms.
Summarising roughly across all countries, we could say that there has been a tendency
to shift emphasis from the first to the second approach in the regulation of certain
mainstream forms of temporary employment. Complete bans and proscriptions are
still in place for what are seen as inappropriate forms of temporary employment, but
there is a lighter touch on what are seen as appropriate forms such as fixed-term work
or temporary agency work. In these cases, limits and restrictions have been reviewed
and fine-tuned in order to ensure that they correspond to contemporary needs,
including in particular the needs of employers to develop appropriate forms of
flexibility in their operations. At the same time, the disadvantages for workers have
been carefully scrutinised in order to eliminate those that are avoidable and to prevent
any others from accumulating. This approach involves both trying to improve the
quality of this employment and trying to ensure that individuals have plenty of
opportunities to move into permanent employment.
We can illustrate this evolution by looking at fixed-term contracts, the most common
form of temporary employment found in most OECD countries. No country has a
complete prohibition on fixed-term employment. However, in most European countries,
fixed-term employment is subject to special rules and regulations, which impose
restrictions and define differences in the treatment of temporary and continuing
employees. These rules cover matters such as requirement of reason, duration, renewal,
conversion to a permanent contract, and compensation at the end of the fixed term
(Schömann et al, 1995, 141-143; OECD, 1999, 59, 62; Delsen, 1995, 140-141,
Clauwaert, 1998). Some are designed as restrictions, eg the requirement of reason,
which applies in around half of the EU countries. Others function to define the rights
and benefits of fixed-term employees. It is noteworthy that fixed-term employees are
generally entitled to most of the rights and benefits of permanent employees, with the
exception of rights around dismissal (Meulders et al, 1994, 64). In France, Portugal and
Spain, they are entitled to compensation at the end of the fixed-term contract
(Schömann et al, 1995, 141-143). Other provisions are more ambiguous, serving both
to restrict and to protect, eg the widespread specifications of maximum number of
24
successive contracts and the maximum duration of contracts (Schömann et al, 1995,
141-143).
Regulations on fixed-term contracts in many European countries became more
comprehensive or restrictive in the 1970s (Delsen, 1995, 138). However, a select
number of European countries moved during the 1980s to ease the legal restrictions
on recourse to fixed-term contracts, largely in response to arguments that strong
employment protection regulation for continuing employees has the effect of inhibiting
employment generation and sustaining high levels of unemployment and that
employers needed more recourse to forms of employment (OECD, 1994; Delsen,
1995, 138-144). Broadly speaking, it is possible to classify the twelve EU countries of
the time into three groups on the basis of their experience in the 1980s (Bielenski et al,
1994; Schömann et al., 1998). First are those with strong employment protection
regulations for continuing employees that introduced - or retained - a liberalised
regulatory regime for specific forms of temporary employment (Spain, France,
Germany, the Netherlands). Second are countries with strong employment protection
for continuing employees that retained - or introduced - strong restrictions on most
forms of temporary employment (Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, and Portugal).
Finally, there are those countries with relatively weak employment protection for
continuing employees that have similarly weak restrictions on the use of temporary
employment (United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark).
In recent years, the pressure towards liberalisation has eased. In countries with high
levels of fixed-term employment, such as Spain, government policy now emphasises
ways of encouraging an increase in permanent contracts (Schömann and Schömann,
2003). Similarly, concern with the conditions of fixed-term employees helped to
encourage the social partners at European level to conclude in March 1999 a
framework agreement on fixed-term contracts – an agreement that has since acquired
added force as an EU Directive (Vigneau et al. 1999). The OECD refers to a
continuing trend towards liberalisation (OECD, 1999), but a more careful analysis
would suggest a shift from emphasis on restrictions to emphasis on narrowing the gap
between fixed-term employment and continuing employment, in order to extend
protection to employees in fixed-term employment.
The Fixed-Term Directive provides a summary statement of the current consensus on
fixed-term contracts in European countries. The stated purpose is to improve the
quality of fixed-term contract work by ensuring the application of the principle of
non-discrimination, and to establish a framework to prevent the abuse of such
employment relationships through the use of successive fixed-term contracts. As such
it recommends a principle of non-discrimination whereby “in respect of employment
conditions, fixed-term workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than
comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed-term contract or
relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds” (Clause 4). It
also recommends measures to prevent abuse such as objective reasons justifying the
renewal of such contracts or relationships; a maximum total duration of successive
fixed-term contracts or relationships; a maximum number of renewals of such
contracts or relationships (Clause 5). In short, it recommends narrowing the gap with
continuing work and measures to target the abuse of temporary work that would turn
it into a long-term relationship.
25
26
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report is drawn from unfinished research.
The fourth section is largely
reproduced from a sub-section in a recent report by Pocock, Buchanan and Campbell
(2004, 29-32).
REFERENCES
ACIRRT [Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training] (1999)
Australia at Work: Just Managing?, Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Allan, C., Brosnan, P., Horwitz, F. and Walsh, P. (2001) ‘Casualisation and
Outsourcing: A Comparative Study’, New Zealand Journal of Industrial
Relations 26 (3), 253-272.
Anderson, G., Brosnan, P. and Walsh, P. (1994) ‘Flexibility, Casualization and
Externalization in the New Zealand Workforce’, Journal of Industrial Relations,
36, 4, 491-518.
Australian Government (2003) Good Jobs or Bad Jobs: An Australian Policy and
Empirical Perspective, Canberra, Department of Employment and Workplace
Relations.
Bieback, K.-J. (1992) 'The Protection of Atypical Work in Australian and West German
Labour Law', Australian Journal of Labour Law 5,1, 17-39.
Bielenski, H. et al. (1994) New Forms of Work and Activity: Survey of Experience at
Establishment Level in Eight European Countries, Dublin: European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] (2001) Contingent and Alternative Employment
Arrangements, Feb. 2001, USDL 01-153…
Borland, J., Gregory, B. and Sheehan, P. (2001) ‘Inequality and economic change’ in
J. Borland, B. Gregory and P. Sheehan eds., Work Rich, Work Poor:
Inequality and economic change in Australia, Melbourne, Centre for Strategic
Economic Studies, 1-20.
Bosch, G. (2004 forthcoming) ‘Towards a New Standard Employment Relationship in
Western Europe?’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42 (4),
Brosnan, P. and Walsh, P. (1996) ‘Non-Standard Employment in Australia and New
Zealand: Results from a Workplace Survey’, in J. Teicher ed., Non-Standard
Employment in Australia and New Zealand, NKCIR Monograph no. 9, Monash
University, 1-22.
Burchell, B., Deakin, S. and Honey, S. (1999) The Employment Status of Individuals in
Non-standard Employment, Employment Relations research Series no. 6,
London, Employment Market Analysis and Research, Department of Trade and
Industry.
Campbell, I. (1996) ‘Casual Employment, Labour Regulation and Australian Trade
Unions’, Journal of Industrial Relations 38(4), 571-599.
Campbell, I. (2000) ‘The Spreading Net: Age and Gender in the Process of
Casualisation in Australia’, Journal of Australian Political Economy, No 45, 65100.
Campbell, I. and Brosnan, P. (1999) ‘Labour Market Deregulation in Australia: the slow
combustion approach to workplace change’, International Review of Applied
Economics, 13, 3, 353-394.
27
Campbell, I. and Burgess, J. (2001a) ‘Casual employment in Australia and temporary
work in Europe: developing a cross-national comparison’, Work, Employment
& Society 15 (1), 171-184.
Campbell, I. and Burgess, J. (2001b) ‘A New Estimate of Casual Employment?’,
Australian Bulletin of Labour 27 (2), 85-108.
Campbell, I., Watson, I. and Buchanan, J. (2004) ‘Temporary Agency Work in
Australia (Part 1)’, in J. Connell and J. Burgess eds., International
Perspectives on Temporary Agency Work, London, Taylor and Francis, 129144.
Carling, M. (2004) ‘Working time developments – 2003’, Eironline, March,
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/print/2004/03/update/tn0403104u.html,
accessed May 5 2004.
Casey, B. (1988) Temporary Employment: Practice and Policy in Britain, London,
Policy Studies Institute.
Clauwaert, S. (1998) Survey of Fixed Term Contracts, ETUI Report, Brussels,
European Trade Union Institute.
Cousins, C. (1999) ‘Changing Regulatory Frameworks and Non-Standard
Employment: A Comparison of Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK’, in A.
Felstead and N. Jewson eds., Global Trends in Flexible Labour, Basingstoke,
Macmillan, 100-120.
Delsen. L (1995) Atypical Employment an International Perspective: Causes,
consequences and policy, Amsterdam. WoltersgroepGroningen.
Edwards, P., Hall, M., Hyman, R., Marginson, P., Sisson, K., Waddington, J. and
Winchester, D. (1998) ‘Great Britain: From Partial Collectivism to Neoliberalism to Where?’ in A. Ferner and R. Hyman eds., Changing Industrial
Relations in Europe, second edition, London, Basil Blackwell, 1-54.
EIRR [European Industrial Relations Review] (1994) ‘Working time Directive’, EIRR
242, 29-32.
Eurostat (1999) Labour Force Survey - Results 1998, Luxembourg: Statistical Office of
the European Communities.
Eurostat (2003) European social statistics: Labour force survey results 2002,
Luxemburg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Ferguson, J. (1997) ‘Casual Employment Contracts: Continuing Confusion when
Protection and Free Market Clash’, New Zealand Journal of Industrial
Relations 22 (1), 123-142.
Foster, A. (1998) ‘Brief: Employee Benefits in the United States, 1994-95’,
Compensation and Working Conditions, 3, 1.
Green, F. (1997) ‘Union Recognition and Paid Holiday Entitlement’, British Journal of
Industrial Relations 35,2, 243-255.
Houseman, S. (2001) ‘Why Employers Use Flexible Staffing Arrangements: Evidence
from an Establishment Survey’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55
(1): 149-170.
ILO [International Labour Office] (1993) Bulletin of Labour Statistics 1993-2, Geneva,
ILO.
Letourneux, V. (1998) Precarious employment and working conditions in the
European Union, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions.
Madsen, P. (2003) ‘”Flexicurity” through labour market policies and institutions in
Denmark’, in P. Auer and S. Cazes eds., Employment stability in an age of
flexibility: Evidence from industrialized countries, Geneva, ILO.
28
Madsen, P. (2004) ‘The Danish model of “flexicurity”: experiences and lessons’,
Transfer 10 (2), 187-207.
Mangan, J. (2000) Workers Without Traditional Employment: An International Study
of Non-standard Work, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Meulders, D., O. Plasman and R. Plasman (1994) Atypical Employment in the EC,
Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Murtough, G. and Waite, M. (2000) The Growth of Non-Traditional Employment: Are
Jobs Becoming More Precarious? Productivity Commission Staff Research
Paper, Canberra, AusInfo.
Neathey, F. (2003) Implementation of the Working Time Regulations: follow-up study,
Employment Relations Research Series no. 19, London, DTI.
Neathey, F. and Arrowsmith, J. (2001) Implementation of the Working Time
Regulations, DTI, Employment Relations Research Series no. 11.
O’Donnell, A. (2004) ‘”Non-Standard” Workers in Australia: Counts and
Controversies’, Australian Journal of Labour Law 17, 1-28.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (1991)
Employment Outlook, July 1991, Paris, OECD
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (1996) Employment
Outlook, July 1996, Paris, OECD.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (1999)
‘Employment Protection and Labour Market Performance’, ch. 2 in
Employment Outlook, July 1999, Paris: OECD.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2002) ‘Taking
the Measure of Temporary Employment’, ch 3 in Employment Outlook, July
2002, Paris: OECD.
Pocock, B. (2003) The Work/life Collision, Sydney, The Federation Press.
Pocock, B., Buchanan, J. and Campbell, I (2004) Securing Quality Employment;
Policy Options for Part-time and Casual Employment in Australia, Chifley
Research Centre, Sydney.
Purcell, K. and Purcell, J. (1997) Changing Contractual Relations Between Employers
and Employees: Contingent Employment Trends, Data Sheets, Paper for the
15th Annual Labour Process Conference, Edinburgh, March.
Reith, P. (2000) Casual employment and working hours in Australia, Ministerial
Information Paper, Canberra, DEWRSB.
Rosenberg, S. and Lapidus, J. (1999) ‘Contingent and Non-Standard Work in the
United States: Towards a More Poorly Compensated, Insecure Workforce’, in
A. Felstead and N. Jewson eds., Global Trends in Flexible Labour,
Basingstoke, Macmillan, 62-83.
Rubery, J. and Grimshaw, D. (2003) The Organization of Employment: An
International Perspective, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Schömannn, I. and Schömannn, K. (2003) ‘In Search of a New Framework for
Flexibility: Reregulation of Non-standard Employment in the European
Union’, in S. Houseman and M. Osawa eds., Nonstandard Work in Developed
Economies: Causes and Consequences, Kalamazoo, W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 351-387.
Schömannn, K., Rogowski, R. and Kruppe, T. (1995) Fixed-Term Contracts and
Labour Market Efficiency in the European Union, WZB Discussion Paper FS I
95-207, Berlin, WZB.
29
Schömannn, K., R. Rogowski and T. Kruppe (1998) Labour Market Efficiency in the
European Union: Employment Protection and Fixed-Term Contracts, London:
Routledge.
Smith, M. and Ewer, P. (1999) Choice and Coercion: Women’s experiences of casual
work, Sydney, Evatt Foundation.
Stewart, A. (2002) ‘Submission to the Inquiry into South Australian Industrial
Relations System’, [The Steven’s Inquiry], unpublished submission, Adelaide.
Tiffen, R. and Gittens, R. (2004) How Australia Compares, Port Melbourne,
Cambridge University Press.
Toharia, L. and Malo, M. (2000) ‘The Spanish Experiment: Pros and Cons of the
Flexibility at the Margin’, in G. Esping-Andersen and M. Regini eds., Why
Deregulate Labour Markets? London, Oxford U. Press, 307-335.
Tucker, D. (2002) ‘Precarious’ Non-Standard Employment – A Review of the
Literature, Labour Market Policy Group, Department of Labour, Wellington.
Valenzuela, A. (2003) ‘Day Labor Work’ Annual Review of Sociology 29: 307-333.
Van Basterlaer, A. and Vaguer, C. (2004) ‘Working times’, Statistics in Focus,
Theme 3 – 7/2004, Eurostat.
van Oorschot, W. (2004) ‘Flexible work and flexicurity policies in the Netherlands.
Trends and experiences’, Transfer 10 (2), 208-225.
Vielle, P. and Walthery, P. (2003) Flexibility and Social Protection, Dublin, European
Foundation.
Vigneau, C., K. Ahlberg, B. Bercusson and N. Bruun (1999) Fixed-Term Work in the
EU: A European Agreement Against Discrimination and Abuse, Stockholm:
National Institute for Working Life.
Watson, I. (2004) Wages of part-time workers in Australia: An initial appraisal using
HILDA, acirrt Working Paper no. 93, Sydney, acirrt.
Watson, I., Buchanan, J., Campbell, I. and Briggs, C. (2003) Fragmented Futures:
New Challenges in Working Life, Sydney, Federation Press.
Whatman, R., Harvey, O. and Hill, R. (1999) The Effects of Employment Regulation:
Case Study Research in the Accommodation, Winemaking and Brewing
Industries, Occasional Paper 1999/4, Labour Market Policy Group,
Department of Labour, Wellington.
Wiatrowski, W. (2004) ‘Documenting Benefit Coverage for all Workers’,
Compensation and Working Conditions Online (Bureau of Labor Statistics
May 26, 2004), http://stats.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/cm20040518ar01p1.htm,
accessed 24/06/2004.
Wilthagen, T. and Tros, F. (2004) ‘The concept of “flexicurity”: A new approach to
regulating employment and labour markets’, Transfer 10 (2), 166-186.
Wooden, M. (1998) The Changing Nature of Employment Arrangements, The
Transformation of Australian Industrial Relations Project, Discussion Paper
No. 5, Adelaide: National Institute of Labour Studies.
Wooden, M. (2001) 'How Temporary are Australia's Casual Jobs?' Work, Employment
and Society, 15 (4), 875 - 883.
Wooden, M. and Warren, D. (2003) The Characteristics of Casual and Fixed-Term
Employment: Evidence from the HILDA Survey, Melbourne Institute Working
Paper no. 15/ 03, June.
30
Appendix 1: The debate on what is ‘temporary’ employment
In reply to Campbell and Burgess’s analysis of the relation between casual work in
Australia and temporary work in Europe, Wooden (2001) offers a different definition
of ‘temporary’. He argues that ‘temporary’ means fixed-term employment –
‘employment contracts of fixed duration’. Therefore, he contends that in the crossnational comparison of temporary work it is only meaningful to use figures for fixedterm employment in Australia. He concludes (2001, 879) that Australia has one of the
lowest levels of temporary employment in the OECD, amounting to only 4.9 percent
of waged work and ranking above only Luxembourg in a comparison with EU
nations.
What happens to casual employment in Wooden’s framework? In his argument,
‘casual’ employment is set aside, and it not clear where it is supposed to fit in to
cross-national comparisons. If the basic distinction in waged work is between
temporary and permanent employment, or, in this version, employment contracts of
fixed duration and those that are of indefinite duration, Wooden’s argument would
seem to require treating casual employment as a form of permanent employment.
This would be extremely hard to justify. Wooden agrees with Campbell and Burgess
that the institutional arrangements that regulate industrial relations practice in
Australia are ‘peculiar’; indeed “the concept of casual employment that exists in
Australia is quite distinctive” (2001, 876). At times, he seems to hint that the
category is so peculiar it can’t be integrated into any cross-national comparison. At
other times, he seems to suggest that it is possible to divide casual employment in
two. He notes (2001, 881; see also Wooden, 1998, 3-4) that “some writers have
begun making the distinction between so-called ‘true casuals’, by which they mean
persons hired to work on an irregular and temporary basis, and ‘permanent casuals’”.
In this perspective, the first group could be included as temporary, while the other
group would be regarded as permanent.
Similar arguments around casual employment are advanced by other commentators in
Australia. The most common approach is the last, which stresses a division between
‘true casuals’, who are seen as close to a notion of temporary, and the remainder, who
are in effect assimilated with permanent employees (Murtough and Waite 2000).
The cross-national data on temporary employment are revisited in a recent OECD
report (2002). The authors continue to operate with a dualistic division of waged
work into ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ components. They suggest that “for the
purposes of this chapter, temporary jobs are those forms of dependent employment
which, by their nature, do not offer workers the prospect of a long-lasting
employment relationship” (2002, 132). Conversely ‘permanent’ jobs are defined as
those that do offer workers the prospect of a long-lasting employment relationship. It
is stressed that the issue is strictly to do with the characteristics of the explicit or
implicit employment contract. In order to operationalise this definition, the authors
advocate a direct approach based on grouping together certain types of work
arrangements that are judged to have a ‘temporary’ character for reasons independent
of workers’ choices whether to remain in a job (170-171). At first glance this
approach seems reasonable. However, the authors then go on to argue that in the case
of Australia only fixed-term contracts can according to this definition be regarded as
31
‘temporary’. They suggest that ‘casual’ jobs are ‘quasi-permanent’ and must be
excluded from the temporary category. As in Wooden’s analysis, Australia now
slides from the top to the bottom of the ranking for temporary employment.
This new OECD approach seems ‘especially dubious’ (O’Donnell, 2004, 18). Why
are casual workers regarded as falling within the ‘permanent’ category? The
reasoning is hard to follow. Casual workers clearly do not have an explicit
employment contract that offers a long lasting employment relationship. But it is hard
to see how it could be argued that they all have an equivalent implicit contract.10 At
best, a proportion of casuals might be in this position. Certainly it seems bizarre to
treat fixed-term but not casual employment as temporary, when the data indicate that
fixed-term employees are closer than casual employees to permanent employees in
almost all aspects of their employment. This includes their tenure. For example, the
SEAS data in Table A1 show that almost half of all self-identified casuals had worked
in their current job for less than a year, whereas the comparable figure for fixed-term
employees was only 39.8 percent (and 16.6 percent for permanent employees). The
HILDA figures (Table A2) for current job tenure are lower, but the pattern is the
same. More casual employees than fixed-term employees have been in their current
job for less than a year. Similarly, mean tenure for casual workers is 2.6 years but it
is 4.4 years for fixed-term employees (and 7.3 years for permanent employees).
Table A1: Time worked in main job, selected types of employee a), Australia,
April to June 2000 (%)
P
F
C
All
employees
Under 1 year
1 and under 5 years
5 and under 10 years
10 years or more
16.6
34.5
19.5
29.4
39.8
40.3
10.0
9.9
48.4
38.0
8.0
5.6
25.6
35.6
16.2
22.6
Total (‘000 employees)
4801.5
286.0
1596.4
6843.7
a)
excluding owner-managers of incorporated enterprises
Key: P – employees with leave entitlements not working on a fixed-term contract; F – employees with
leave entitlements working on a fixed-term contract; C – self-identified casuals.
Source: ABS, Employment Arrangements and Superannuation, Australia, April to June 2000, cat. No.
6361.0
Murtough and Waite (2000) refer to an ‘implicit contract for ongoing employment’ as one element in
their procedure for separating out ‘true casuals’. Though this sounds useful, their effort to
operationalise the notion is poor. As Campbell and Burgess (2001b, 95-96) point out, the notion is
‘defined to include almost everyone’. Having an implicit contract of ongoing employment is treated as
a default position, which is noted as absent only under extreme circumstances. If we follow this
procedure, even much casual work that is on-call would fit the bill. Thus, a student doing bits and
pieces of casual bar work at night is seen as having an implicit contract of employment if s/he stated
that they planned to give up the job soon in order to concentrate on their exams!
10
32
Chapter 1 Table A2: Current job tenure, selected types of employee a),
Australia, 2001 (%)
P
F
C
All
employees
Under 1 year
1 and under 5 years
5 and under 10 years
10 years or more
15.4
36.4
19.6
28.7
31.3
40.8
14.8
13.2
43.1
41.5
8.5
6.8
23.8
38.0
16.4
21.8
Mean years of job tenure
7.3
4.4
2.6
5.8
a)
excluding owner-managers of incorporated enterprises
Key: P – permanent/ ongoing; F – fixed-term contract; C – casual.
Source: HILDA Survey Wave 1, weighted data from Wooden and Warren, 2003, 13, some percentages
have been summed in order to fit aggregate categories.
33