Vol. 27 No. 2 2001

Permanent URI for this collection

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item
    The ACTU’s response to the growth in long-term casual employment in Australia
    (National Institute of Labour Studies, 2001) Watts, Richard
    "The steady growth in the level of and nature of casual employment in Australia poses unique challenges for the union movement. With a quarter of Australian workers and a third of women in the workforce now employed as casuals, a fresh look at the union movement’s traditional response to casual employment is required. The ACTU has recognised the changes in the labour force and the need to adopt a strategy which protects the interests of casual employees, whilst maintaining and enhancing the interests of ongoing part-time and full-time employees. This article outlines one element of the ACTU strategy, the campaign for parental leave for long-term casuals."
  • Item
  • Item
    A new estimate of casual employment? Reply
    (National Institute of Labour Studies, 2001) Murtough, G ; Waite, M
    "We have not produced an alternative estimate of casual employment. Rather, we have analysed a new measure published by the ABS, which shows that 17.7 per cent of employed persons had a casual contract in August 1998. This new measure was developed by the ABS to overcome significant measurement problems with its standard definition of casual employees (which accounted for 23.2 per cent of employed persons in August 1998). Our analysis sought to dispel the misconception that all casual contract employees are the same, with no entitlements, undesirable work arrangements, and similar preferences for ongoing employment."
  • Item
    A new estimate of casual employment?
    (National Institute of Labour Studies, 2001) Campbell, I ; Burgess, J
    "Researchers at the Productivity Commission have challenged the standard ABS estimates of casual employment in Australia. Using information drawn from the recent Forms of Employment Survey, they propose a new, drastically-reduced estimate of the number of casual employees. They argue that the standard category of ‘casual’ is too broad and confusing and that it is necessary to exclude various groups of workers that cannot be regarded as ‘true’ casual employees. We contend that, apart from the argument for excluding owner-managers of incorporated enterprises, there is no justification for the downward revision. The new estimate does not succeed in undermining the results of previous research. Casualisation, based on high and growing levels of casual density, continues to demand attention from both researchers and policy-makers."
  • Item
    Editor's Introduction: Special Issue on Casual Employment
    (National Institute of Labour Studies, 2001) Cully, M
    n/a