Comment by James Vassilopoulos
Thirty-seven thousand full-time jobs were lost in August, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, while the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.7%.
A 35-hour working week, with no decrease in pay, would be the best and fairest way to create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
In the last 20 years, there have been massive changes to the nature of work in Australia. In 1966, 90% of the work force worked full time; in 1995 only 72.5% did so.
Those in full-time work are working longer hours, are more stressed and are doing more intense work. On average, full-time workers now work 43 hours per week. More than one third of the full-time work force work 49 or more hours a week. One third of full-time workers want to work less.
The lengthening of the work week and the greater intensity of work have immense social and psychological implications. Workers see less of their family and friends. General enjoyment of life worsens, with less leisure time.
It does not make sense for society to have close to 1 million unemployed, yet to make other workers work longer and longer hours.
But for the employer, it is cheaper to have the existing work force work longer rather than employ more workers. New workers require training, support and superannuation. In future, penalties and overtime can be reduced, as ordinary hours are lengthened.
It makes political sense for the capitalist too. Having a pool of unemployed lowers wages for those in work and accentuates the fear of unemployment. Bosses say: keep your head down, do your work properly, give your life to the company — or else you too could be out of work.
Australia has one of the highest proportions of part-time and casual workers in the developed world. About 2 million workers work part time, 25% of the work force. One and half million of these are women, illustrating that most of the job growth for women has been in part-time and casual work.
In 1995, 20.1% of the work force was casual. Casual workers often do not get many of the conditions, like paid annual or sick leave or superannuation, that permanent workers receive.
The growth in the part-time and casual work force indicates the success that employers have had in undermining working conditions. Nearly one third of part-time workers want more hours. Forty per cent of casuals would prefer permanent work.
A 35-hour week with no loss in pay would benefit all workers. Full-time workers would work less. Part-time workers would, if they chose to, work more hours. Most importantly, the unemployed would have the right to a decent job with decent pay.
There are 6.3 million full-time workers working on average 43 hours per week. Reducing their hours to 35 would create, mathematically, 1.4 million jobs. But of course it is more a question of social power and struggle than of mathematics.
The ACTU congress in September adopted a resolution that acknowledged the changes in the labour market and the defeats working people have suffered with the "unprecedented growth" of part-time and casual employment and outsourcing. It opposed casualisation of work and was in favour of collective bargaining being directed to the "expansion of full-time" work and the "regulation of part-time" and casual employment.
The main action, however, was only to have a list of ideas considered by an ACTU working hours committee.
The congress did pass an amendment calling for an "immediate demand" to "reduce the working week with no diminution of income". But this was just one more in the sea of motions which are not seriously intended as something that the union movement as a whole could carry out.
There was no campaign to alleviate the job crisis projected in which all unions could participate. A campaign is needed, now, for a 35-hour working week with no loss in pay, together with the conversion of casual and part-time jobs to full-time ones, and an end to unpaid overtime.<>><>41559MS>n<>255D>