|
|
Hourly Rates for Temporaries
Bruce Barbour - October 2018
In the past few years I have been mainly working as a
temporary, due to the flexibility it gives and the options
of being able to take time off when needed. A lot of this
temporary work has been with local government because that
is where I have most of my experience, and I can usually
slot in and become productive very quickly.
However what I have found in the last few positions I have
had in local government as an agency temp is that the hourly
rate offered - which should have an oncost component, see
next paragraph - is often lower than what directly employed
staff are getting for the same job.
Temporaries on hourly rate assignment are meant to get the
base hourly rate paid to permanent staff plus a percentage
oncost, to take account of the fact that temporaries do not
get paid an hourly rate while on annual leave or for public
holidays and sick leave, and do not get a whole lot of other
benefits of being directly employed (e.g. training, long
service leave etc.). Temporaries should also get a pay
premium for the flexibility that temporaries offer to
employers (effectively there are no wrongful dismissal
rights and they are able to come into and leave an
organisation at short notice depending on work load). In
most enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) and in the
Awards this oncost is usually 25% on top of the base hourly
rate.
How can the temp agencies get way with paying less than
council's permanent staff? Well the wages offered under the
council EBAs over time have outstripped the wages regulated
under the Local Government Award, so EBA wages are now
significantly more.. The temporary agencies that employ the
person pay the temporaries at Award pay rates rather than
the local council EBA pay rates. Consequently, even with a
25% oncost, the hourly rate paid to the temporary could
still be below what a direct employee was getting per hour -
and remember that the temporary is not getting paid hourly
rate for any time for holidays, etc. that would have
normally accumulated if they had been directly employed.
What this could mean is that there could be two people
working side by side in a council doing the same type of
work, with the direct employee effectively getting paid a
whole lot more than the temporary employee. I have seen one
temporary position advertised where part of the duties of
the position was "mentoring" other staff. However from what
they were offering as an hourly rate it would have been
quite likely that the temporary "mentor" would have been
paid less than the people that they were to be "mentoring".
That is in no way a fair arrangement. I have also seen a
"Coordinator" position advertised, typically a minimum Band
7 or 8 position in council, being offered a rate
commensurate with Band 5 to 6. The temp coordinator would
likely be paid less than his or her staff they are
supervising. Again not a fair arrangement.
You would think that the council would realise that if they
offered a better hourly rate then the qualifications,
experience and number of applicants for the temporary
position would be higher, giving the council a wider choice,
ultimately leading to the engagement of a better qualified
temporary employee and a better work outcome. And being only
temporary the difference in costs over the term of the
assignment would not be that much. Perhaps the problem is
that the temporary agencies are telling the councils that
they can get the required people, supposedly qualified and
experienced, at the bargain basement prices, and the
councils are rubbing their hands together gleefully
accepting this cost saving without thinking through the
implications.
What conclusions can I draw out of this?
- Assuming the council is aware of this inequality of
payment - the council I worked for definitely was -
then, far from being employers of choice for
temporaries, some local councils will avoid paying EBA
rates if they can. It means they have no qualms about
having two people doing the same job getting paid at
very different rates. Equal pay for equal work is a
principle that has been established long ago. Anything
else is unfair. (The council I worked for was aware of
the lower pay rate because I approached them hoping they
would agree to an increased hourly rate to match what a
permanent employee would get. My immediate boss and the
HR department were aware and unconcerned. After more
negotiation they eventually agreed to an hourly rate
increase but not to the hourly rate that I would have
gotten if I had been directly employed by the council.)
- Unions seem to be not concerned about this practice,
which undermines the EBA - they must surely be aware of
it. Their argument would be that temporaries have low
union membership and therefore are not their concern. If
all temps were in the union then unions would pay more
attention. But still unions should be concerned with
this practice undermining their EBA conditions - if it
is not challenged this form of temporary employment will
become more wide spread.
- I have to admit that recently while doing short term
assignments I have neglected to sign up to the union -
so I am part of the problem - if I do get back to work I
will have to be more diligent about union membership.
But unions should also look at their membership
processes to make it easier for temps on short term
assignment to start and halt and then start again their
union membership, as required. They should also look at
stream lining the process for temporaries moving across
industries and therefore to a different union for
coverage.
- The unions' role in maintaining good wages and
conditions is plain to see. The EBA wages and conditions
are way above the base award. It is clear to me that
many councils would pay everyone base award if they
could get away with it. Despite their apparent lack of
interest in the wages and conditions of agency temporary
employees, unions, and organised labour, are still the
main reason that even seemingly reputable employers, let
alone the bad ones, pays wages and conditions above the
legal minimum, so support your union.
Another question I would have to ask is why is the Award so
much lower than most EBAs. While I haven't done a survey of
all council EBAs it is likely that all councils would pay
their directly employed staff above the Award. In which case
why isn't the Award increased to at least the wages of the
least of the council EBAs - after all, the Award is meant
for workers engaged on local government work. That would
prevent temp agencies from providing staff at wage rates
significantly below permanent staff.
And why don't the unions demand a requirement in council
EBAs (or councils - to show that they are really good
corporate citizens and employers of first choice to all
their workers - just put it in) that temporary staff engaged
through temp agencies be paid at EBA rates (with specified
oncosts), which is what the EBAs (at least the ones I have
seen) require for temporary and casual staff who are
directly employed by a council. That would protect the
integrity of the EBA and prevent the undermining of council
wages and conditions through the use of temporary agencies.
Without this change to the EBA the use of temp agencies to
save councils money has the possibility of becoming a much
wider practice. Even to the extent that a council in the
future could outsource the majority of its labour supply or
large excisable sections of its workforce through temporary
agencies or labour hire firms. Or outsourcing of part of the
services to private companies who would engage workers
required, often some of the same personnel employed by
Council, but a lesser number of them and at the lower award
rates. If you think any of this is unlikely then remember it
has happened in other industries.
Contents Page.
|
|
|