There’s a clear reason Morrison lifted multiple-site working rules in aged care. It’s for same reason he introduced IR omnibus bill in March – protecting labour hire companies. Allow me to explain: 1/7 #auspol
Labour hire or “agencies” are entrenched in aged care. Facilities pay a fee to labour-hire biz for recruitment & admin costs. Staff perform services at facility but agency schedules & pays them -an efficiency & cost-reduction measure to cream fat off short-term govt contracts 2/7
Govt allocated $17.7bn to aged care in Budget (min $10bn/yr needed to meet RCs reccos). Critically, funds to providers came w no stipulations of organisation & pay of jobs. Its why @anmf_federal @unionsaustralia & others have been pointing to insecure wrk & contagion risks. 3/7
Aged care eg. shows regulation of insecure wrk like labour hire must be central to pandemic response. Precarious wrk drove 1st VIC lockdown: contracted big firms in hotels, security & aged care hiring wrkrs on v low pay, ad-hoc, multi-site basis, insufficient training. 4/7
The laws shaping & determining jobs are a federal govt responsibility! & when we need regulation, they’ve gone in opposite direction during COVID: expanding power of emplyrs to use insecure labour rather than intervening to make work safer & more secure. When did this happen? 5/7
In March Morrison introduced IR Bill w explicit purpose of extinguishing rights of casuals engaged regularly like permanent wrkrs to backpay for entitlements. Why? It would have obliterated labour hire companies. For more see our Senate Inquiry sub> 6/7 futurework.org.au/senate_inquiry…
Fed govt must intervene into labour & procurement laws to reduce insecure wrk & improve job quality, not drive it down. There is NO reason why aged care jobs funded by public investment shouldnt be secure, safe jobs. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
