Work Intensification – an analysis of the reasonable hours test case

Teresa Dwight

Work intensification has been a major issue in recent industrial relations. There are no arguments as to whether work intensification exists, only the extent to which it exists and whether or not it is a problem. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has taken the issue to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), proposing a ‘reasonable hours case test’. The Commonwealth government has opposed this proposal, arguing that the test case is “unnecessary, unworkable and inappropriate” (Australian Workplace, ‘Reasonable hours case’). These arguments have a major affect on the choice of policy, which will be used to address this issue. In an analysis of this policy, it is necessary to review the stances of the actors, the reasons behind those views, and some possible alternatives in addressing the perceived problem of work intensification.

According to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), who represent Australian workers, work intensification is a problem. The ACTU have been concerned about the significant increase in average working hours over the past ten years and its effects on workers and their families (Pocock 2001:8). President Sharon Burrow of the ACTU, states that their goal in regards to working hours is to “bring balance to the lives of working families” (requoted in Workers Online 2001:1).

The proposal is heavily driven by Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data and other qualitative research. According to ABS data collected by the Australian Industry Group (2001:9), the number of people who work more than 49 hours per week, as a percentage of the workforce, has increased from less than 20% in 1978 to 32% in 1997. Other ABS data indicates that between 1982 and 2000 the average weekly hours for full-time workers has increased by 3.7 hours (ABS 2000 Cat. no. 6293.0 cited in Campbell 2002:78). Campbell (2002:77) implies that the proposed policy could address unemployment problems in his reference to data that indicates the increase in work hours is equivalent 550, 000 full-time jobs.

The qualitative research refers to adverse health effects of working more than 48 hours per week on a regular basis. The ‘Fifty Families study’, commissioned by the ACTU, details the impact of modern working time arrangements upon an employee’s family and social life (Australian Industry Group 2001:10). The report looks at around fifty families who are affected by long hours of work, including the workers themselves and their partners (Pocock 2001:8).The ACTU’s case is also heavily driven by the policy initiatives of France and the European Union who have introduced restrictions on working hours (a maximum working week of 35 and 48 hours respectively).

In terms of implementation and possible outcomes, there are a number of benefits to the ACTU’s proposed policy. The standard test case provision is intended to create new ‘flexible’ award guidelines in federal awards, which will govern working hours and overtime. The ACTU has suggested that ‘reasonable hours of work’ should be tested according to such factors as an employee's health, family responsibilities and the number of hours worked over an extended period (Worker’s Online 2001:1). This will prevent the unsafe and unproductive results of tired workers (Workers Online 2001:1). Unions define the work intensification problem in terms of the effects on workers and their families and communities. Conversely, the government defines the issue in terms of business, employers and the Australian economy.

The government claims to view this issue in terms of what is best for all those involved, businesses, consumers, the general economy, and not just the outcome on one particular group in society (National Competition Council, Autumn 2000). The government is concerned as to whether Australian industries, both self contained and in competition with foreign countries, can continue to expand and develop satisfactorily with a lower standard working week. Therefore the opposition to this policy proposal is driven by a push to increase domestic market competition in order to benefit the Australian economy (National Competition Council, Autumn 2000). The main issue facing the government that in order to keep up with Australia’s overseas competitors, the domestic market must expand, allowing increased competition and consumerism to boost the economy.

The ACTU’s proposal is limited by the assumptions that it makes in drafting the policy. The ACTU assumes overtime work being done is against the wishes of the workers. Employer associations argue that the ABS data reveal that only about 15% of the workforce work more than 49 hours per week at any one time (Australian Industry Group 2001:11). Employees who volunteer to work extra hours or support receiving overtime payments would no longer be able to work those hours under the ACTU proposal. The Australian Industry Group (2001:11) argues that employers who need employees to work more hours for reasons including seasonal work or a shortage of skilled employees to meet peak demand, because of the special nature of the industry, or because of the temporary absence of other employees, would be severely affected. However, the ACTU stipulates that the guidelines would take into account the requirements of individual industries (Workplace Online 2001:1).

Another assumption is that the majority of workers who work longer hours have families. Single people or couples are not taken into account. The argument that a restriction in hours would create more jobs out of the ‘surplus’ hours, relies on the assumption that these surplus hours are not so fragmented as to actually be able to create proper shifts and that employers will actually engage in the practice of hiring extra staff. The assumption that the eight hour, five-day working week can be reinstated ignores economic changes. Although unions claim that Australian workers have the second longest hours in the OECD (Workers’ Online 2001:1), they do not take into account the high level of benefits that workers receive by international standards, such as levels of time off work in the form of annual leave, sick leave, personal/carer’s leave, public holidays earlier long service leave, maternity leave and parental leave for long term casuals (Australian Industry Group 2001:9).

There are a number of alternatives to the proposed policy. Australian Industry Group (2001:12) suggests that employers and employees should be provide with a full range of options, subject only to a reasonable safety net of award provisions. It is argued that the various factors proposed by the ACTU to be taken into account are often difficult to ascertain or define with any sort of precision, which would not allow for the consistencies that an award prohibition requires (Australian Industry Group 2001:11). Policy initiatives in response to the work intensification issue are currently strongly governed by the results of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission decision. The most prominent policy issue in regards to work intensification, therefore, is of policy choice. The policy that is chosen to address this issue will have extensive implications for employees and employers and businesses.

References

Australian Industry Group, Restricting Working hours? AIRC Reasonable hours test case, National PIR Group Conference, 8&9 October, 2001.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission, ‘Award Simplification Decision, December 1997’, [http://www.airc.gov.au:8000/ISYSquery/IRL404F.tmp/1/doc]. 23 December 1997.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission, ‘Procedures and Legislation – Workplace Relations Act 1996’, [http://www.airc.gov.au/procedures/wra/wra.html]. May 2002.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission, ‘Australian Industrial Relations Commission Amendment rules’ [http://www.airc.gov.au/procedures/rules/amend_19_12_01.htm] 20 December 2001.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission, ‘Practice Note – Victoria’ 24 [http://www.airc.gov.au/termination/practice/home.html] January, 2002.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission, ‘Working Hours Statement’ [http://www.airc.gov.au/whats_new.html] 14 February

Australian Industrial Relations Commission, ‘Speech by Justice Guidice at Australian Workers Union Conference’ [http://www.airc.gov.au/whats_new.html] 19 April 2002.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission, ‘Safety Net Review – Wages, May 2002 Decision PR002002’ [http://www.airc.gov.au/documents/full_bench/full_bench_decisions.html] 9 May 2002.

Australian Workplace, ‘ACTU Reasonable hours case’, [http://www.workplace.gov.au/Workplace/WPDisplay.htm]. May 2002.

Australian Workplace, ‘Work and Family Homepage’ [http://www.workplace.gov.au/Workplace/WPDisplay.html]. May 2002.

Campbell, Iain. 2002. ‘Extended Working Hours in Australia: The Importance of Working-Time Regulation’ in Celebrating Excellence: The Proceedings of the 16th AIRAANZ Conference. Queenstown: AIRAANZ.

Dawson, Drew. 2001. Extended Working Hours in Australia: Counting the Costs. Report for ACTU Reasonable Hours Test Case. Melbourne: ACTU.

Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and small business, ‘Annual Report 2000-1 Output group 2.1’ [http://www.annualreport.dewrsb.gov.au/AnnualReport/2001/frames/] May 2002.

Pocock, Barbara. 2001. Fifty Families: What Unreasonable Hours do to Australians. Report for the ACTU Reasonable Hours Test Case. Melbourne: ACTU.

Workers Online, ‘Bid for Reasonable hours to AIRC’, Issue no. 96, 18 may, 2001.

back to Articles