The " Permanent Casual "Job Problem !

 The government is using scare tactics to force employers to stop using " casual " employees and move them onto a " permanent " employee basis.  Casual workers do not get holiday pay or sick pay and are compensated for that by a twenty-five percent loading applied to their hourly hire rate.

Recently, a Federal court decision ruled that some employees on casual pay may be entitled to claim both holiday pay and sick pay despite receiving that loading, if they have worked for the same employer doing regular shifts for twelve months or more.

This is called " double dipping " and there is fear that the court may award holiday pay when it has already been compensated by that hourly loading.  It seems that all the parties concerned are studiously ignoring the real reason most small business employers are avoiding taking on permanent employees and instead serving their needs with " permanent casuals ".

Employers are cautious because of the uncertainty of the courts when it comes to retrenching permanent   employees when a recession brings about a business downturn.  That right to " hire and fire " is no longer in the employers hands.  A canny employee can launch repeated appeals with claims of " unfair dismissal " and often receive extraordinary verdicts from a sympathetic judge.

Some employers have been astonished when that ruling insists the employee's dismissal was unlawful.  Not only must he or she be reinstated, they must be paid for the time they were idle while the case went to court.  It seems the courts reject most valid reasons for an employer needing to retrench a worker.

In many cases, the employer has to negotiate from a point of disadvantage and bribe the employee to resign in exchange for money to be rid of an unsatisfactory worker.  That sirtuation is avoided by using casual labour.  If the task performed is unsatisfactory the shift hours are simply reduced to zero.

It is estimated that there are 2.6 million casual workers in Australia and that about 1.35 million work permanent shifts for the same employer, week after week.   One of the problems is the attitude taken by the banks and other lending authorities.  Their mind set is to more highly regard that " permanent employment "  claim  when considering a housing loan, despite many permanent casuals receiving a higher pay packet than their competitors for that loan enjoying " permanent " status.

In the Australia of today, casual employment is fast moving into that " permanent casual " category and in many cases it suits both the employer and the employee because the work required could not support a permanent employee hired on a weekly basis.   It is not unusual for a casual to work split shifts for several employers to cover peak demand that occurs in different parts of the day.

That is common in the food industry.  Some establishments specialise in serving breakfast.  Many are more active at lunchtime - and others only open for the evening meal.  A casual with specialist skills will often find work for all three where the use of permanent employees would be totally uneconomic.

A century ago, most people were in permanent employment but that is not the Australia of today.  Jobs will be more plentiful when the right to " hire and fire " is returned to the employer with adequate employee safeguards, and the lending authorities move their thinking into the twenty-frst century.