There are many reasons for the causualization of the workforce, some by choice, others because there is no alternative on offer.

From employees point of view, some simply want the flexibility, while others won't make the commitment, there are also those who have commitments with children, or some other form of carer duties, then there are those who won't take a full time job, as it effects their benefits.

There are even some who work enough hours to be full time, but choose not to as the pay rate drops, even though they accumulate entitlements.

From an employers point of view, casual means that at the end of each day/shift, the employee is actually 'legally terminated' and, you can choose whether or not to invite them back the next day/shift.

If circumstances permit, casual is the best option for bosses, as it simply makes the position on offer more competitive, which usually bring the best out of workers.

And of cause, there's that unfair dismissal law, proudly introduced by the then labor government, watered down by the libs, then revamped again by labor.

There is little doubt that our booming economy was linked to the watering down of UFD laws, back in the late 90's, at least for small business, which by the way, now have this law called 'unlawful dismissal' , which is the same dog, with a different leg action.

So if you are one of the many who work casual, but would like perm work, I am sorry to say that those days are all but gone.

Of cause there are those who will hit me with figures to suggest otherwise, but if we exclude mining?

rechtub,

In an earlier thread, you mentioned a colleague whose employees had been with him a long time as permanents - and all the extras he was now required to pay out.

Does it occur to you that they were good loyal employees because the relationship was reciprocal?

I see good steady permanent employment as preferable, as a contract of respect and good faith between employer and employee.

It works both ways.

Casual employment is becoming a pervasive blight on relationships between employer and employee.

Like a crappy landlord who ends up with the tenants he deserves - so it is with an employer who has negligible interest in the welfare of his employees. He ends up with those that he deserves.

I remember after work choices was introduced, there was a movement to permanent employment. Now with the fair work act making it impossible to get rid of poor employees, the shift is to casual work.

Says it all, Shadow Minister.

Says it all Rehctub, be blowed.

In actual fact SM wantonly indulges in the opposite to the truth. Workchoices forced un-wanted casualization upon the workforce.

Job security and its destruction through Workchoices was the very issue that caused hundreds of thousands of working people(union and non-union) to attend rallies in their city squares in protest against it's implementation and ultimately resulted in the PM himself losing his own seat. You can put lipstick on a pig all you like SM but it's still a pig.

The reason so many rejected Workchoices is of course, that the quality of everyones lives are ultimately effected negatively by the uncertainty of casual employment. Cant plan, cant spend, cant speculate to accumulate. The cumulative effect has been that service levels everywhere have deteriorated, product quality dubious and expensive. Being served by dis-interested, uncommitted and underpaid staff becomes tiresome and un-constructive.

Paying seemingly exhorbitant sums of money with inbuilt disproportionate margins of profit, for goods made in sweatshops by the downtrodden, drives me to a consumer conclusion that it's best to buy something, only if you absolutely have too.

Yes your right about one thing Rehctub, those days are gone.The days when your could make the choice too buy something genuinely good, and actually afford it. The days when you could have a really fine dining experience (with live entertainment) for a reasonable price and be catered for by staff showing pride in their establishment and product. The days when you were expected to provide the product first to ensure that it was satisfactory to your customer before you expected to be paid.

Poirot supplies a balanced view. The type of view that existed before the Howard years when business people and unions worked with each other and productivity gains were everyones focus. The days before industrial confrontation.

The Unfair Dismissal Laws were enacted as a result of the ratification of ILO Convention 158 in 1993 and had more to do with the "Accord" that was in force than some sinister Commie Plot to overthrow capitalism. Australia has ratified several ILO Conventions since 1931.

It was actually the Democrats who negotiated a "softening" of Keating's legislation in 1996 and despite some criticism it was found that unemployment figures continued to fall regardless.

The number of Federal applications fell by 50% after the 1996 reforms but only by 12% after the Howard 2001 reforms.
Most claims were pursued under State legislation and it was mainly larger corporations that used the Federal legislation.

The Howard claims that his amendments would create 77,000 jobs ended up being more like 6,000.

Later increases in claim numbers were probably more likely due to a more aggressive approach taken by employers than vexatious litigation by disgruntled employees.

What is really wanted by employers is the right to hire and fire at will and allow employees no legal recourse, as well as stripping them of penalty rates, paid leave and basically all other entitlements wherever they can.

Hence the rise in workforce casualisation.

Some may suspect that a totally casualised workforce and a return to the master-servant days would be an employers paradise.

The meaning of the word "unfair" strangely seems to be totally ignored in discussions about the legislation.

Perhaps the word "wrongful" would be more suitable, as is used in some other countries.