This casualization of the workforce goes back almost three decades, with the introduction of unfair dismissal laws. Even then they (the unions) all of which have secure jobs BTW, were warned as the age old saying goes, for every action there is a reaction and this is the result.

The whole idea had a shot in the arm with the mining boom, whereby ridiculous pays and conditions were being negotiated where $150K/year 2 on 2 off became the norm. Of cause this was acceptable when coal was mega bucks per ton, yet now with coal worth much less, the unions objected to pay and condition cuts but the miners obviously saw this coming and as such had already lured their workforce into contract work, with huge bucks, thus providing them with a 'get out of jail free card' if you like, a move that obviously outsmarted the unions. Not hard I guess because let's face it, who's the smarter, the CEO on millions, or the unions official on pittance in comparison.

So while I do feel for the many workers caught in the cross fire, collateral damage I guess, the fact of the of matter employers don't start businesses to employ people, they do it to make money. So if you put hurdles in their path, they will find a way to bypass them, and here in lies a prime example.

So unfortunately people the only ones who have managed to get that secure job through all this, is the unions, the ones who you used to fight your battle in the first place, and of cause with you guessed it, your funds.

Sorry, but you were warned, and it does not help that Aussies are more reactive than pro active, but I guess that's life.

The main culprit is not unfair dismissal laws (though they add a bit), not even the second-main culprit, globalisation.

The main culprit is the devastating introduction of computer technology in all walks of life, including in the workplace.
I understand that computers and similar equipment are necessary for science, engineering and medicine, but everywhere else?

Well, progressives wanted progress, now they got it.

I feel for people who can't make plans, get a mortgage, take a holiday and so on because they are casual workers, or on short term contracts. But, unions are to blame for their woes - all their demands have made it too expensive for employers to permanently employ workers. The only reason unions are interested in seeing more secure employment is it might provide them with members. But even most full timers don't bother with unions anymore.

Proud ex union official I will never say workers play no roll in mass casualization, but that roll is not found in unfair dismissals, a butcher shop is very different than a power station being built, or multi million dollar road construction site,*are all of us aware a casual if they do not earn a certain amount get zero super?*two casuals can share one job and no super is earned,union action in OVER PRICING labour during a boom, cost full time jobs, one union, by over pricing its laborers, saw tradesmen on lower wages do the labouring work in some country areas,profits, not always unions, drove this rush, it remains my view some part of wage rises should be bargained away to limit casual workers,and yes, unions should reverse the trend by pushing the casual rates higher

Belly, you are fudging the figures old mate by trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill on super and, you forget I am an employer and have been prior to the introduction of UFD laws.

First to super. You are correct in saying it is possible for an employer to avoid super with casuals, however, the cut in rate for super is around $450 PER MONTH and, with a casual tradie on at least $45 per hour, this means only 10 hours (not days) per month. Very very unlikely as most awards provide for a min of a 4 hour shift, or $180, so just three minimal shifts per month an you have to pay super.
Workers, aided by unions have forced the costs up as they have negotiated stupid deals using the supply V demand to their advantage. Unfortunately the demand is dwindling but the unions don't want to give up their unfairly gained perks, perks that were obtained due to their advantage at the time. So unless unions accept that what goes up in good times, must be allowed to come back down in tough times, workers will be the big losers.

Since UFD laws there have been so many deterrents placed on employers to directly employ. Super, with staff having the right to force employers to change their super payment arrangements at their free will, with no consideration to the employers out of pocket expenses, nor any compensation for same, casual loading increases, parental leave and other leaves either implemented and/or floated, the list goes on.
It's not rocket science, because as long as an employer can offload the responsibility of employing (labour hire) or be rewarded for investing in infrastructure while being punished for employing, the situation will never change as casualisation of the workforce is nothing more than a reaction to an action but the likes of the unions just don't get it. To be continued.

Another furphy used in advertising is that as a casual you don't get holiday pay or sick pay, where in fact they do as that is why the loading is placed on pay rates for casuals.21 to 25% to my knowledge.
The fact that the worker spends this extra on a weekly basis is not the fault of the employer as they have paid the extra to compensate.
The fact is the wheels were put in motion almost 30 years ago and unions were warned then, but they just kept pushing, for better rates, better conditions, more flexibility, the list goes on.
There is no turning back now and it is the unions that have blood on their hands and ironically the real victims are the workers, the very people who contributed the union funds to fight the battle that killed their dreams. How bazar and how very wrong, in fact it is almost criminal to think of the damage the unions have done and that they are still getting paid in full time jobs, while those who they say they protect are being forced into unsecure roles.
Yes, it's simply a reaction to an action, and every action has one.