Of course, politicians trot out the old adage that it is always better to be in any job than out of a job. Then the logic goes, it is easier to move from a casual, short part-time hours job to a permanent full-time or long part-time hours job. This is a central pillar of Australian welfare-to-work policy and a view adhered to by many community leaders.
Generalised promises of jobs growth fit with such airy assumptions because they don’t require attention to the quality of jobs that are created. There is of course an element of truth in it but new evidence derived from the Melbourne Institute’s HILDA survey makes it a contestable proposition.
In a recent article, labour market researcher Dr Ian Watson interrogates HILDA data on whether casual (mostly part-time) jobs are indeed a bridge to better employment or whether they are a trap with little opportunity for advancement.
Dr Watson finds that there is a significant entrapment effect within casual employment, especially for women and for workers over 45. He also finds a geographical dimension to the entrapment effect in areas of socio-economic disadvantage. While casual jobs can lead to permanent jobs, depending on various factors, there is also a high rate of transition to joblessness and a high rate of long term continuity in the casual job. This carries with it all of the disadvantages I pointed out in an article on workforce casualisation last year.
The dynamics behind the entrapment effect are complex but two factors stand out from the HILDA research. The first is that, because of its nature, casual employment serves to undermine labour force attachment, which is the single most important predictor of good future labour market outcomes. Casual jobs mean workers are more likely to be in and out of different jobs, as well as cycling in and out of unemployment. Such fragmented workforce attachment undermines the chances of finding secure, permanent employment.
The second factor is that much casual employment is specifically designed to be a ‘dead-end’ within many firms. These jobs are part of ongoing workforce arrangements in many industries as noted in my workforce casualisation article. They are not ‘probationary’ jobs and they are not designed to offer pathways to permanency.
This latest analysis of HILDA data points to some very uncomfortable issues about the nature of jobs growth. If we are to seriously address issues of women’s labour force participation as so passionately argued in relation to the Coalition’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme, and organisations such as the Grattan Institute, then more ‘good’ jobs to facilitate the transition out of casual, part-time work are necessary.
Equally, the entrapment of older workers in casual jobs is very challenging, as policy demands continuing labour force attachment until the pension eligibility age of 67. Older workers will need decent jobs to successfully achieve this policy goal without creating significant pools of economically disadvantaged people in their pre-retirement years.
The labour force participation of women and mature age people are vital for productivity growth according to the same Grattan Institute report.
As unemployment trends upward and the economy undergoes its post-mining-boom “transition”, Australians deserve better answers on the nature of future jobs growth than the ones offered in this election campaign.
Job security is a basic building block for stable family and community life, and arguably for economic development itself. For political parties to leave it out of their policy reforms is, simply, negligent. In addition to the economic and industry policies for a strong diversified economy generating “good” jobs, it is crucial to establish labour market and social policies to break the cycle of entrapment in casual, low end jobs
Bring on some plans for more “middle class” jobs.
Veronica Sheen is a Research Associate, Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University.
This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.
