ACTU campaign will axe jobs

The ACTU campaign for the government to introduce burdensome restrictions on flexible work is a disingenuous move to clamp down on the choices of independent workers and consumers.

This campaign is not grounded in any sensible economics. The ACTU hits new, digital economy businesses by imposing a workplace regime based on how businesses in the old economy operated.

Weighing down businesses with unnecessary rules and regulations will ultimately lead to job losses and hurt many people.

These restrictions would ultimately harm both casual and independent workers, as well as the millions of Australian consumers, who benefit from the provision of flexible work, particularly in the sharing or ‘gig’ economy.

Ultimately, businesses and workers are beholden to the needs and desires of consumers. Modern consumers want goods and services which are on demand and streamlined for their needs. In this world, businesses and workers need to be more flexible than in the past.

The ACTU secretary, Sally McManus pretends that this campaign is all about fairness for workers; but the ACTU wants to take away the right of independent workers to freely choose their own conditions, hours of work and the quality of their work.

Casual employment conditions and the use of independent contractors provide the economy with the necessary flexibility to help deal with the advent of new technology and services.

The majority of recent employment growth has actually been in full-time work, with the number of Australians in full-time employment growing by over 290,000 in the last year.  Given the strong state of the Australian workforce, the ACTU’s campaign is irresponsible.

The losers of labour regulation could include workers who want flexible hours, consumers who want food and goods delivered, and the elderly who need flexible home care.

Importantly, the ACTU should acknowledge that restricting flexible working conditions will incentivise businesses to automate jobs at a faster rate than otherwise.  How is this in workers’ interest?