MountaineerLabor to give casuals new rights to full-time employment in move to improve job security
SJ0filthy casuals! (I kid, I kid)
Treevan đŠđșCasual conversion has been a thing for a while which I attempted to do at my work.
I was the second person in Australia to apply for conversion in a particular industry. The Fair Work Commissioner expressed excitement.
It failed. I followed up a year later, failed again. The follow up was just to let the FWC that my employer did nothing they said they would do. Turns out that my award has a single line that states both parties must agree to arbitration. Of course, I agreed but my employer didnât. The Fair Work Commissioner could only make recommendations that didnât mean shit.
Listening to the radio this morning, I canât be sure that my particular loophole has been closed.
I await with bated breath.
Henceforth, all casuals are getting their shifts reduced to 34 hours a week. Oh dear, looks like you donât qualify. Such a shame.
Unfortunately the reference to full-time is sloppy reporting from the Guardian. The quotes from the Minister only mention converting to âpermanentâ work
Currently casuals working regular part-time hours are supposed to be offered permanent part-time work. I doubt theyâll be changing that.
Please may someone explain this a little bit more for me? My understanding has been that casuals are a temporary solution to fill gaps in the various sectors of employment.
Why would we need a plan to make them permanent? Would the onus not be on the employer to decide to ask if they would want full time work if they had the ability to do so? Or is this purely a means to prevent employers from extorting casuals?
maniacalmanicmaniaIn some sectors such as universities where my partner works casualisation is quite clearly a permanent solution.
Full time employees are entitled to 6 weeks of paid leave (combination sick pay and holiday) every year.
Casual employees who work âfull timeâ are not entitled to any paid leave at all.
As far as I know that is basically the only difference between the two. Another commonly cited reason is itâs easier to fire a casual employee but thatâs only really true if the casual employee is not working regular hours. If theyâre rostered on at regular hours they get the same protections as a full time employee.
The other difference is hourly wages are (or at least should be) higher for casual employees, but your annual pay is (or should be) exactly the same if you take six weeks of âunpaidâ leave.
My employer gave me a choice, and I chose casual. I like the extra hourly pay - six weeks is a lot of money and it earns quite a bit of interest (especially these days!) in a savings account waiting for my next holiday.
To extend on this, which is accurate, thereâs a few extra things that are worth mentioning.
Unless youâve signed a contract that specifically changes these (and which you would need to be compensated for to make the contract legal):
Full time employees get long service leave, which only kicks in for full time employees after several years.
Certain industries in South Australia such as Electricians, Plumbers etc have transferrable long service leave (it carries across employers in what is effectively a gig job).
Full time employees are paid for public holidays, which they are not obliged to work.
A full time employee basically cannot be fired without cause - only made redundant.
If you are made redundant, you will be paid a settlement.
This is why itâs easier to get loans etc by the way, the bank has reason to believe youâll continue your employment.
As an aside, the paid sick leave is pretty important.
If I get sick, I donât go to work and therefore donât spread that illness to my coworkers, and I can still pay my rent and buy food.
A casual employee has to decide if they are sick enough to forgo income for one or more days.
Unscrupulous individuals taking âmental health daysâ, where theyâre not sick, has been a big part in the movement to causalising the workforce (in my opinion).
A full time employee basically cannot be fired without cause - only made redundant.
Thatâs generally true for casual employees as well. Itâs just that one of the âcausesâ might be âwe donât have a shift for you this weekâ.
That âcauseâ doesnât always apply though - it depends on the industry.
Unscrupulous individuals taking âmental health daysâ, where theyâre not sick, has been a big part in the movement to casualising the workforce (in my opinion).
yeah thatâs the point you lost me.
10 days off, they donât roll over. Theyâre owed me per year. Be it for my mental health or physical I am owed those days
A business that penalises its workforce because said business doesnât like the fact owed leave is being utilised need to be shot in the face.
So the system should be changed so that you can take the days with notice. đ€·
The problem is people taking days off without notice, regularly.
As currently implemented, you feel ripped off.
If you just donât turn up on a day leaving me short staffed, youâre letting me down (my targets wonât be met), youâre letting your co-workers down (they end up picking up your slack or getting called in on their day off at the last minute).
FFS, let me know ahead of time (psst, Iâm going to take a âsickâ day on Friday) and maybe I wonât be grumpy.
How is that rage inducing inconvenience you describe any different from the inconvenience of a legit sick day though. I mean outside your head.
If a workplace workflow collapses from a callout, thatâs on poor management. If a workplace canât complete deliverables without one person, thatâs on management.
And ironically, cutring staff down so sharply that you end up with these scenarios is what causes a higher number of callouts due to burnout and stress
Iâve already explained above why a legit sick day is important, it stops your staff having to choose between being paid and doing the right thing - not spreading the illness.
Unscrupulous business owners demanded too much of their staff, including working whilst sick - so the law was changed so that those staff would be protected.
Unscrupulous employees abused this, so a limit was put in place - you get ten days a year.
But somehow, youâve decided that a staff protection is actually extra days off, that are being stolen from you if you donât get sick!
âin your own headâ as you put it.
Iâm not currently managing a team, but when I did, I never asked for a sick note from the doctor, what a waste of time and money.
People with your sense of entitlement cause nonsense like that.
No one is entitled to your work for free.
You arenât entitled to payment for nothing.
Thereâs a balance here, ever changing, with sloppy vague laws applied post facto in an effort to maintain it.
Iâm not against changing it, but taking your sick days as unplanned leave is against the spirit in which those sick days weâre bargained.
Try that again without ad hominen attacks.
These are obligations. Period. You want to do business in Australia, you play by these rules.
There are actually no limits whatsoever on how many times you can call in sick. None. While your comment on overwork and unscrupulous employers is correct, there were absolutely no âunscrupulous employeesâ abusing the system to the point where it had to be capped, literally you called in sick, you got no pay, or if your workplace paid you, that was a private arrangement. Mandated paid sick leave was written into its very existence as a limited number of days right from the start - and businesses decided to play to the legal bare minimum.
Those ten days are factored into your annual wages btw. So yes, they do belong to me.
Also: itâs incredibly hilarious that youâre trying to be denigratory going on about a âsense of entitlementâ when weâre discussing literal, legally defined entitlements.
Falsely claiming that what I said was ad hominem is itself ad hominem.
You keep doing you mate, Iâm sure chucking sickies is the least annoying thing you do at work.
you canât help yourself, can you?
Thanks for the detailed breakdown, it makes sense about what youâve just been saying. It stands to reason that government should put in more protections for casuals rather than just being offered a full time position by an employer for those that choose to stay casual.
The 25% casual loading is calculated to take in notice of termination and redundancy pay too. Lots of people resign and fewer are made redundant, so wouldnât get notice or redundancy pay anyway. That means in most circumstances, employees are better off in a pure money sense as casuals.
The big downside is if things are quiet at work you arenât guaranteed any hours. As you mention, that also creates a hurdle when applying for loans.