Self Employed Australia

"Everyone needs an Advocate"

“Everyone needs an Advocate”

The nature of work

Apparently we’re a ‘cancer’ according to the Albanese government

by

cancer-aged-care-gigWorkplace Relations Minister Tony Burke recently called gig work a ‘cancer’. Give us a break! What a ridiculous overstatement.

Let’s get real. Only 0.19 per cent of workers earn their full-time income through gig platforms. Yes, 0.19 per cent! That’s it. But, on the back of this cancerous depiction of gig work, the Albanese government intends to clamp down on it.

People who do gig work are, by definition, self-employed. Attacking gig means attacking self-employed people. Burke’s comment is insulting to self-employed people.

But if we’re going to apply such politically emotive language to policy analysis, where’s the real ‘cancer’?

Take the aged care sector. This is one sector Minister Burke identified as having a (cancer) problem.

The 2020–21 Royal Commission into Aged Care exposed abusive treatment of people in aged care. It was and is a massive scandal. The Royal Commission recommended that self-employed people and gig work be banned from aged care.

However, the Royal Commission offered no evidence as to why self-employment/gig should be outlawed. Was it because self-employed people abused elderly people? The Commission was silent. The fact is, however, that 96 per cent of people working in aged care are direct employees of aged care providers. Surely this overwhelming percentage would suggest that the problem lies in employment, not with self-employment/gig.

Facts speak louder than assumptions.

Care workers in aged care are on rock-bottom low wages. This leads to high worker turnover and lower quality care. Low pay rates occur because the award minimum pay rates, in practice, are the maximum being paid.

But the evidence is that the 4 per cent of workers in aged care who are self-employed are routinely paid more than employees. This evidence, which is accepted as valid, comes from Mable the largest gig platform operating in aged care. The higher rates occur because the self-employed workers are free to negotiate their remuneration directly with the people they care for. This doesn’t happen with employees.

The Commonwealth funds aged care. But there’s evidence to suggest much of that money disappears into a black hole. Look at these facts.

Funding for the top level in-home care is around $114 per hour. Aged care ‘providers’ are overwhelmingly not-for-profit charities and manage the money. They pay their ‘employed’ award workers roughly $32 an hour (casual). Add workers’ compensation premiums and so on and the cost is $35 an hour. The providers routinely charge another 32 per cent ($36 an hour) for their services of assessing and monitoring need, and organising workers.

There’s a gap, therefore, of $43 an hour of unexplained and unaccounted Commonwealth funding. What’s going on?

This month, media leaks from a yet-to-be-released Health Department report state that 9-in-10 in-home care providers don’t meet minimum government price transparency requirements. Some 275,000 older Australians receiving government-funded home care can lose up to 60 per cent of their allocated money in provider fees.

This ‘disappearing’ money is being spent on “excluded items” such as holidays, TVs, renovations and more. Maybe a good portion of this expenditure is justified? But is this where $43 an hour goes?

What is obvious is that the front-line employees doing the care are paid rubbish. Surely within existing funding budgets there is ample room to pay workers more. There’s a lot of fat in the system. Self-employed gig workers individually can and do negotiate higher remuneration. This doesn’t happen with employees.

What really emerges is that it’s the employed 96 per cent of workers in aged care who are being exploited by the ‘employment’ system.

The ‘cancer’ in aged care looks much more like the result of employment management systems than the outcome of gig platforms. In fact, gig-organised self-employment could well be the answer to a sick aged care system.

The Albanese government should take off its ‘cancer’ blinkers. Gig and self-employment offer real solutions, not problems.

Unions and labour lawyers in panic. High Court disaster!

by

contract-kingA major High Court decision in February this year has sent unions and labour lawyers into a panic. The High Court declared that when deciding whether a worker is an employee or self-employed that the written contract is king!

We’ve waited until we received detailed legal analysis of the decision before making comment, which we can now do. We’ll send out several news alerts on this. It’s extremely important.

In simple layperson’s terms the High Court has said that:

  • If a written contract is clear and comprehensive, a court must primarily rely on the written contract in coming to a decision.

This seemingly knocks out what’s been used for the last 40 years or more. Courts have applied the ‘multifactorial’ test, which is a basket of behavioural indicators only one of which is the written contract. The High Court has said that the lower courts have misunderstood the situation and that the High Court has always had the view that the written contract is supreme.

This has sent unions and labour lawyers into a spin. The multifactorial test has been great for lawyers and unions because they could retrospectively examine a case going back years. It is a great source of income for lawyers and has allowed unions to intimidate businesses and self-employed people.

But the High Court has said that it has a duty to create certainty, stating that the multifactorial test:

“… is apt to generate considerable uncertainty, both for parties and for the courts.”

And

“It is the task of the courts to promote certainty with respect to a relationship of such fundamental importance.”

We see this as extremely important. There are 2.1 million self-employed people in Australia. We have a right to clarity and certainty. The High Court has done the right thing by society in its drive for clarity.

But there are others who want uncertainty. This is bad. And the pressure is already coming on the Albanese government to pass legislation to create uncertainty. We will campaign strongly against this.

But first we want to ensure that there is clarity about what the 99-page High Court judgement says.

We’ve prepared the following links for SEA members:

We’ll have more information and comments soon.

‘They’ plan to screw over 2.1 million Australians

by

dark-menaceLet’s be clear. There’s a cabal of unions, labour academics and self-interested businesses that are gunning to destroy the right of Australians to be self-employed.

Their strategy is brilliant in its simplicity. They plan to push through new Federal legislation that will throw into chaos the law that defines who is self-employed and who is an employee. This will directly harm the capacity of Australia’s 2.1 million people who are self-employed—people who, by definition, are their own boss.

That’s right. The Australian Bureau of Statistics identifies 2.1 million of us comprising:

  • 1,391,900 self-employed (own boss) who don’t have employees and
  • 805,800 self-employed (own boss) who have employees.

The ‘cabal’ is mostly targeting the 1,391,900 self-employed who don’t have employees. Think hairdressers, owner-drivers, care workers, gardeners, personal trainers, and the massive numbers of IT, accounting (and more) consultants to identify just some. What the ‘cabal’ is calling for is legislation that will strip away your right to be your own boss. They want forced employment.  Such law will also have an impact on the other 805,800 self-employed.

The cabal wants legislation that invents ‘employee-like’ arrangements.

Understand what this would do. It would destroy the integrity of the commercial contract. It would give smart-arse lawyers the ability to carve out and deconstruct the very legal basis of commercial activity upon which our society is based and which defines who is self-employed. It’s a sneak guerrilla attack. But once in place it will have devastating effects.

Legislating to invent employee-like arrangements is to take social or psychological concepts and to fashion law on those concepts. It’s incredibly dangerous for our society. It’s something the High Court seemingly commented against in a ground-breaking judgment in February this year.

The High Court said (See par 44):

The employment relationship with which the common law is concerned must be a legal relationship. It is not a social or psychological concept like friendship.

That is, the employment contract, and its opposite, the self-employed contract are legal concepts. This comment by the High Court was within the context of the most important judgement on the definition of self-employment in 50+ years.

After more than 50 years of legal confusion the High Court said (See par 58):

It is the task of the courts to promote certainty with respect to a relationship [employee/self-employed] of such fundamental importance.…

and

The parties’ legitimate freedom to agree upon the rights and duties which constitute their relationship should not be misunderstood.

The fact is that people have a right to determine their contractual (self-employment) relationship themselves. Employee-like legislation would strip away that right. It would create massive uncertainty in defiance of the certainty the High Court says should exist.

Unfortunately, Labor’s federal ‘Secure Jobs Plan is to create ‘employee-like forms of work’ legislation.

Campaign to defend self-employed people: It’s going to be a battle

by

self-employed-battleWith the election of the Albanese government, there’s been a frenzy of academic, union and Labor government commentary about how big changes are coming for self-employed people. There’s the:

  • Demonisation of the ‘gig’ economy, as if every gig worker works in some sort of oppressive Dickensian environment.
  • Pushing of ‘employee-like’ independent contractor concepts and of bringing such people into employment regulation.
  • Calls to change the definition of self-employment/independent contracting.
  • Renewed attack against owner-drivers.

Let’s be clear. The Albanese government has stated its intent to implement new, aggressive policies around each of these issues. Workplace Relations Minister Tony Bourke explained on ABC Radio the ‘big shift’ that’s to happen.

Frankly, we (SEA) have been around too long (since 2000) and we are too experienced to fall for the spin that this is to ‘protect’ self-employed workers. These types of agendas have been promoted by the broad Labor movement (unions, ALP, Labor academics) since the 1990s. The agenda is to squeeze the life blood out of people who are, and want to be, their own boss. We know the game.

But this time is different from the last three decades-or-so. With The Greens and at least one independent Senator, Labor has the numbers to push its agenda through parliament.

Their agenda is, of course, damn nonsense and will be cancerous to the livelihoods of Australia’s 2.1 million self-employed people. You won’t know the cancer is there until you start feeling the pain.

However, don’t expect something different from the Dutton opposition. After the Morrison government’s 2019 win, the Coalition demonstrated a brain deadness on small business issues.

  • Yes, it introduced some good ‘pay small business on time’ requirements but didn’t go far enough.

But,

  • It continued to allow the ATO to bully, harass and oppress small business people without any checks and balances.
  • It failed to implement the beefing up of unfair contract laws that were ‘ready to go’. Did it do a deal with the big end of town to put this off?

Now for some balance. While we’re warning about, and will campaign against, Labor’s destructive agenda for the self-employed, there’s some good news.

The upshot is that we have a battle on our hands. The are some positives in the Albanese government’s small business agenda, but also some shockers. We’ll be producing considerable commentary and analysis to explain the good and the bad over the coming months.

Albanese plan to smash Australia’s 2 million self-employed

by

election-2022-smashThere’s now clarity on what Albanese’s Labor intends to do to self-employed small business people if elected. Labor intends to attack us.

The ALP Secure Jobs Plan says:

“Labor will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include ‘employee-like’ forms of work…” Labor intends to attack “…new forms of work such as gig work.”

Last Monday (2 May) this was further made clear at an Albanese street-walk rally in Brisbane. The Australian Financial Review reports from the rally that Labor will legislate to invent new law that says that self-employed people are a ‘little bit’ an employee, like being ‘a little bit pregnant’. It’s clear that the policy is directed at giving unions control over gig workers and any other self-employed person they choose to target. Hairdressers, for example!

The policy is a direct lift from the Californian law called AB5, introduced in early 2020. It was a job killer which hit the most vulnerable self-employed people. Think of single mums running their own transcription business from home! Closed down! There are thousands of examples.

The United Kingdom has an old 1986 ‘little bit pregnant/employee’ independent contractor law. This was used by the UK transport union in 2021 to attack gig ride-sharing. It’s thrown commercial contracts into chaos in the UK.

Albanese’s Labor says it wants to do ‘nice’ things such as giving ‘little-bit-employee’ self-employed people access to collective bargaining, superannuation and the minimum wage. But this is a beat-up.

Self-employed people (us) already have easy access to collective bargaining authorised under competition laws. Superannuation is clearly required when an individual, self-employed persons (not structured as a P/L company) works for a business. The Independent Contractors Act requires that independent contractors should not be paid less than employees.

The truth is that self-employed people are protected under commercial law regulations. Think of the unfair contract laws. Albanese’s Labor wants to drag us into the mess of union-controlled industrial relations law. Forget it!

And quite recently the Australian High Court reaffirmed that self-employed people operate under commercial law. The Court also stated that UK-type (little-bit-employee) laws are not part of Australian law.

Further, the International Labour Organisation, a United Nations body, declared in 2006 that national laws should not interfere in the commercial relationships of independent contractors.

The Albanese plan defies international labour rulings and secure (High Court-determined) contract law. It is a repeat of the disastrous Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal introduced by the 2012 Gillard Labor government. This ‘protection’ invention was about to destroy the businesses of 50,000 self-employed truckies before the Turnbull government abolished the Tribunal.

The obsession Labor has with the ‘evil’ gig economy is silly. Only 0.19 per cent of the Australian workforce earned their full-time income through gig work. But Labor is using a near-hysterical, anti-gig campaign as an excuse to attack self-employed people.

It’s clear that if Labor wins government, we (self-employed people) will have a big fight on our hands to retain our right to be self-employed. It’s about our right to decide how we want to earn our living and to control our working lives. Labor wants to attack that right.

For goodness’ sake stop wearing those same pyjamas at work!

by

pyjamasAre you one of those ‘work from home’ people who insists on wearing your favourite pyjamas nearly all day? Well, your choice of ‘comfort’ clothing is yours! But here’s a ‘think piece’ about your being a ‘revolutionary’ work-from-home worker!

Demographer Bernard Salt reports that Covid may have pushed ‘work from home’ workers from 5 per cent of the workforce to some 50 per cent. He expects, however, that figure to level out at around 15 per cent as a long-term trend.  Assuming he’s correct, this 10 per cent rise in the ‘work from home’ movement is a dramatic shift in the work environment.

This surge in the ‘work from home’ movement is almost certain to generate a major lift in the number of self-employed in Australia.

Having grasped this, let’s quickly dismiss the bleatings of CBD property developers. Their financial self-interest is on naked display as they worry about sunk and future financial investment in CBD office space.

Bernard Salt indicates that the bleatings can be ignored in any case because the natural increase in office worker numbers will rejuvenate CBD office space within a few short years.

But the bigger issues relate to workers’ lifestyle choices, the worker ‘liberation’ delivered by technology and the massive but un-recorded or un-diagnosed productivity boom embedded in ‘work from home’.

In its simplest form, the productivity boom is readily understood when considering home-to-work travel times. If ‘travel’ time from the bedroom to the home office is (say) two minutes, that utterly trounces the 1–2 hours many office workers spend traveling to and from a CBD site. The clear productivity increase is staggering. But because the direct benefit is to the worker and not directly to the ‘firm’, statisticians don’t know how to measure it. And office ‘bosses’ may then say, ‘if the firm doesn’t directly benefit, what use is this extra productivity?’

But there’s more.  Home office work challenges the management philosophies and practices underpinning the office environment of the last 50–60 years.

The advent of the ‘knowledge worker’ notion, well in vogue this century, has shifted perceptions about the office environment. Current thinking is that office workers need to have a framework for exercising individual judgment if productivity is to be increased. Enter the human resource professionals and their obsession with creating office ‘culture’.

This HR-driven idea is that If the (HR) bosses can create the right culture, workers will exercise individual judgement (but still within the boss’s controlled culture) and the firm will grab the productivity benefits. But that ‘control through culture’ has always been a line-of-sight exercise. If the (HR) boss can’t see the worker, where’s the control?

Working from home shakes those ideas up big time. For bosses it’s really scary. How do you ‘control’ the company culture when the home ‘office’ worker takes an ‘unauthorised’ break to do the ironing or pick up the children from school?  That’s the challenge at one level.

There are deeper institutional  challenges. Employee contracts are ‘industrial instruments’ modelled entirely on factory concepts. Worker remuneration is overwhelmingly time-based, regulated through archaic, ponderous quasi-courts.

Such institutional processes seek to regulate and control human interactions in relation to equal opportunity, discrimination and the like. Work safety laws are also predicated on a factory-style assumption that bosses (however defined) control everything and that therefore bosses must be responsible for any safety breaches.

But consider this example: How should work safety laws be applied if a home worker trips over the family dog and breaks an arm? Is the worker’s boss liable?  This is not a silly issue to consider. Precedent has already been set.

New tenancy laws in Victoria now require electricians to check and certify electrical appliances in tenanted homes every two years. So a domestic toaster malfunction is now the ‘fault’ of the landlord. Will work safety regulations move to require bosses to pay for and check electrical safety in home workers’ homes?

The point is that once people work from home, the idea of that person being a controlled employee becomes a nonsense. Working from home means that a person exercises self-control in nearly every conceivable way. This is the complete opposite of every institutional, legal and behavioural idea of the ‘employee’ worker.

But self-control is everything that being ‘self-employed’ is about. Being a ‘work from home’ worker is a natural fit with being a self-employed independent contractor.

But watch out for the responses of the HR professionals, the ‘controlling’  bosses, the CBD property developers and the many institutions that regulate the work environment. They are very likely to conduct major pushbacks.

Is the ‘gig’ up? Is a ‘secure’ job a fiction? We say it is!

by

security-blanketThe Senate is currently holding an inquiry into ‘insecure’ work. The Terms of Reference state: “…to inquire into and report on the impact of insecure or precarious employment on the economy, wages, social cohesion and workplace rights and conditions….”

Well we, self-employed, independent contractors, gig workers, contractors and so on—that is, people who are their own boss—are seen by labour academics and unions as doing ‘insecure’ work. And they see that as a huge social problem that has to be fixed. The Victorian government wants to ‘fix’ us as a problem by outlawing us. Some fix!!

We say that ‘secure work’ is a “figment of imaginations searching for legal expression”. In other words, ALL work is insecure. What people need is not a ‘secure’ job but continuity and certainty of income. This is a more sensible way of approaching the issue. Trying to manufacture ‘secure’ jobs is just the old left-vs-right thing. It’s plain dumb and doesn’t get us anywhere.

We say that self-employed people need ‘protections’ through commercial regulation, such us the unfair contract laws and pay-on-time laws. These sorts of things provide real, practical solutions.

We were asked to appear before the Senate Committee which we did on Tuesday 27 July (this week).

Here’s our one-page summary of our stance on the issue.

And here’s the 37-minute video of our discussion with Senators on the issue.

Deliveroo decision is NOT a win for unions. Just normal stuff!

by

There’s a lot of excitement coming from the union movement over the recent ‘Deliveroo’ decision. ‘This is the end of gig’ they say.

They are excited because the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has declared that Deliveroo food deliverers are employees and not independent contractors.

However  there’s nothing at all unusual about the decision. In 2018, a similar company to Deliveroo, the German-based Foodora, left Australia after its delivery people were declared to be employees. Conversely, in April  2020, Uber Eats delivery people were found to be independent contractors not employees.

You might ask, ‘is there some inconsistency here?’ Well, no! In fact the FWC (and the courts) are being entirely consistent. What the law requires is the application of the standard common law tests to distinguish an employee from a self-employed person.

The process involves considering up to about 20 or more factors such as: Did the worker have to work certain times? Was the worker ‘required’ to work? How was the worker paid? The task at law is to look at all the  factors and give an overall assessment.

Even though Foodora, Deliveroo and Uber Eats appear to do the same thing—organise riders to collect food from restaurants and deliver the food to customers at home—in fact they each have different contracts and manage the process differently. That’s why the rulings differ.

I’ve examined both the Deliveroo and the Uber contracts. I’m not surprised by the Deliveroo decision. There are major operational differences between the companies. The fact is that the Deliveroo decision supports the legitimacy of the gig economy.

In 2006, Federal legislation secured across the country the ‘common law’ test for employee vs contractor determinations. The Independent Contractors Act followed on from a 2006 International Labour Organisation declaration which secured the right of people to be self-employed. Australia is a signatory to that international obligation.

Further, Australia has done more than any country to protect and defend self-employed people.

The Independent Contractors Act has unfair contract provisions. In addition, we have specific Federal unfair contract laws for small business people that are currently being ‘beefed up’. Then there are the current moves to create pay-on-time laws for small business people. The JobKeeper and JobSeeker benefits were made immediately available to self-employed people during 2020.

At the same time, there is no tolerance for sham contracting, with specific laws against that practice.

These Australian protections for self-employed independent contractors are world-leading.

But this regime that protects the right to be self-employed is hated by Australian unions and labour in general. They run scam media plays trying to boost the argument that self-employment is on the way out.

This ‘we hate independent workers’ movement is deeply embedded in Australian Labor.

The Victorian government is proceeding with an agenda to kill off self-employment. But Victorian Labor’s plan is confronted by the Independent Contractors Act which overrides state laws on the issue. This then explains the hype around the (very normal) Deliveroo decision.

Labor is eager to turn ‘gig’ into an election issue. But it’s up against the most advanced package of self-employment protections in the world. Labor’s agenda threatens those protections.

‘Homework’ takes on a totally new meaning … for adults!

by

The global energy giant BP has told around 25,000 of its staff that work from home is now permanent. This is confirmation that ‘home-work’ is now globally locked in and not a temporary Covid ‘thing’.

BP is selling offices and moving to smaller premises as staff move to working two days and more from home. This is evidence of a working revolution. It’s a revolution that will throw the legal, academic, tax and political work-regulation establishment into utter confusion.

It makes the recent UK court decision to declare Uber drivers to be a ‘little bit’ employees combined with destructive self-employed tax laws, to be dangerous for the UK economy. It makes the Californian law making self-employment illegal look like a wall of sand trying to hold back an incoming tide. It makes the Victorian government’s agenda to outlaw self-employment look plain dumb.

The fact is that home-work will result in a productivity boom that will be difficult for statisticians to measure. How do you measure output per hours worked when someone is writing a report at home, stops, puts on the washing, returns to writing, stops, hangs out the washing, checks emails, heads off to collect the children from school and has several business phone calls in the car driving to pick up the children? How to you measure the huge time saving when the ‘commute’ to work is from your bedroom to the corner office in the spare bedroom?

But these are the productivity ‘realities’ that self-employed people have enjoyed and delivered for years. This is the self-employed work/life ‘balance’ truth which is now being realized by employees at BP and will predictably move through the corporate sector.

But here comes the push-back.

Property investors are worried about their CBD skyscraper investments.

Corporate power junkie managers wonder how they will ‘control’ staff.

Work safety officers wonder about what happens when people injure themselves at home when working.

Accountants can’t work out how to monitor people on hourly based pay rates.

‘Exploitation!’ scream unions and ‘worker rights’ academics!

It’s all nonsense of course. The incoming tide is largely located in the knowledge-based side of economic activity which is shifting from ‘hours’ to ‘results’ assessment of work. It’s been driven forward by technology for two decades and more, but Covid has given it a great kick along.

What’s happening is the disintegration of the specific legally defined ‘employment’ relationship.

The reality of self-employment based on self-control and payment on results butts up against the social and legal ‘employment’ assumptions. Employment as a generic term is looking more and more like self-employment as time-based pay is replaced by results-based remuneration.

The post Covid home-work revolution is pushing this trend harder. As more people work from home, even if not full-time, results-based remuneration becomes the logical outcome. Hours-based remuneration becomes awfully complicated.

We can probably be sure that this revolution in home-work, ‘employment’ (looking like self-employment) will be a major productivity booster.

Australian unions see flying ‘gig’ pigs landing from the UK

by

You may have seen reports that the UK’s top court has decided that Uber drivers are not independent contractors. The UK decision seems to support the unions’ campaign against the gig economy. It gives the appearance of international support for Federal Labor’s anti-gig (anti-small business) policy announced earlier this month.

However, sorry to disappoint the small business-haters in the unions and Labor, but the UK’s decision has no relevance to Australia.

The facts in Australia are that Uber drivers have been declared to be independent contractors by:

And last year (2020) the FWC declared that Uber Eats delivery people are independent contractors. In this 2020 decision the Commission looked at the UK law above and stated that its irrelevant to Australia. Here’s why.

In Australia we use the well-known common law tests which identify whether there is a commercial contract or an employment contract. All independent contractors (self-employed people) earn their income through a commercial contract. This is locked in under Australia’s Independent Contractors Act 2006. It protects the right of people to be their own boss.

In 1998 the UK created statutes which say that even if you’re an independent contractor you can still have access to some employment ‘rights’. This is the ‘little bit pregnant’ idea. The UK statute says that someone working under a commercial contract can be a ‘little bit’ an employee. This is the statute that has been ruled upon by the UK Supreme Court last Friday in the Uber case.

The UK has made, and is making, a mess of its treatment of self-employed people. Self-employed UK people have been treated as economic trash during the Covid crisis, receiving little if any income support. For 20 years the UK tax office (HMRC) has been trying to stop the self-employed from having business tax rights. The Uber decision now throws massive uncertainty into commercial contract law.

Fortunately, in Australia since around 2006, we’ve developed policies to support and ‘protect’ self-employed people. This has included the same access as employees to the federal parental leave scheme (2010), JobKeeper and JobSeeker (2020) and the introduction of unfair contract laws (2016) and their planned ‘beefing up this year. Also, this year the full pay-on-time laws for small business should pass.

We ‘protect’ small business people by giving them access to a practical commercial ‘rule of law’ environment, backed by sensible access to social security support where needed. This creates a stronger economy with small business at its core. Let’s hope that the UK small business destruction disease doesn’t spread to Australia.

For a longer version of this article which includes a link to the UK Supreme Court ruling, click here.