Category archive: Business

AGL to Build $400 Million Gas-Fired Power Plant in NSW

AGL will build a $400 million gas-fired power plant near Newcastle, NSW to replace the ageing Liddell coal-fired station.

The energy company said it is assessing sites for a 252-megawatt facility development, due for completion in the end of 2022.

“AGL is committed to supporting the orderly transition of Australia’s electricity generation capability to modern, clean and reliable energy supply,” said AGL chief executive Andy Vesey.

“That’s why we gave seven years’ notice of when we intend to close the Liddell power station at the end of 2022 and we are pleased to commit today to build the power station near Newcastle.”

AGL also said there were plans to “assess the potential” to develop a further 500 megawatts of gas-fired generation capacity, pending commercial and industrial demand.

The company’s announcement to the Australian stock exchange followed pressures from the federal government to sell Liddell power plant instead of closing it. Rivalling company Alinta has expressed interest in acquiring the power plant to keep it open until 2029.

Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg said Liddell’s closure would still bring blackout risk, even with the replacement plan. “That’s why it’s really important that the executives of AGL consider on its merits this offer that comes from Alinta,” Frydenberg said.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) said there would be a potential shortfall in capacity of 850 megawatts if Liddell was to be closed, but it also said AGL’s replacement plan “would deliver sufficient dispatchable resources to fill the identified 850MW resource gap”.

Do You Really Need Private Health Insurance? Here’s What You Need to Know Before Deciding

Sophie Lewis, UNSW and Karen Willis, La Trobe University

Every year at the end of March and early in April, the 11 million Australians who have private health insurance receive notification that premiums are increasing.

Premiums will increase by an average of 3.95% from April 1 and will vary with the insurer and the product. The increase is lower than previous years but still higher than any wage growth, leaving consumers wondering if they should give it up or downgrade to save money.


Read more:
Private health insurance premium increases explained in 14 charts


Why go private?

Australia has a universal health care system, Medicare. Health care is available to all and is financed, in part, through a 2% tax on our wages (the Medicare levy). Access to general practitioners and public hospitals are just some of the benefits.

The Commonwealth government encourages Australians to have private health insurance. It imposes penalties for not taking it out (paying more income tax: the Medicare levy surcharge) and offers incentives for those who do (rebates on premiums).

Some 45.8% of Australians have private health insurance, a rise from 31% in 1999.

Australians have different reasons for taking out private health insurance. For some, it makes financial sense to take out policies to avoid paying the Medicare levy surcharge.


Read more:
Explainer: why do Australians have private health insurance?


Others choose to take out policies to avoid waiting times for elective treatment (predominantly surgery); to choose their own specialist or hospital; or to have the option of a private room, better food or more attractive facilities.

Some people perceive that private health insurance will give them access to better care in the private system. Many are fearful they won’t get the services they need in the public system.

Shorter waits than the public system

A universal health system is based on people with the most clinical need gaining access to the services required.

Most emergency treatment is provided in public hospitals. The case is different for “non-urgent” or elective surgery, with patients encouraged to use their private health insurance, mainly because of waiting times for such surgery in the public system.

Elective surgery waiting times for public hospitals vary according to whether patients are publicly or privately funded. In 2015-2016, the median waiting time (the time within which 50% of all patients are admitted) was 42 days for public patients, 20 days for patients who used their private health insurance to fund their admission, and 16 days for those who self-funded their treatment.

Bear in mind, however, that waiting times vary according to clinical urgency. In 2016-17 in New South Wales, 98% of public patients were admitted within the clinically recommended time frame.

Differences in waiting times also vary according to the type of procedure. In 2015-2016, cardiothoracic (heart) surgery had a median waiting time of 18 days for public patients and 16 days for all other patients. In contrast, the median wait for public patients needing total knee replacement was 203 days, and 67 days for all other patients.

The question of choice

Choice of provider is a leading reason people take out private health insurance.

The idea that consumers should have choice in the services they receive has been promoted by government and private health insurance companies for some years, with great success. Many consumers now believe that more choice is better and private health insurance is an “enabler of choice”.

But do people really have choice? Choice is not equally distributed, and not everyone with private health insurance gets the choices they desire.


Read more:
Private health insurance and the illusion of choice


Private health insurers reserve the right to restrict benefits, or provide maximum benefits for using their “preferred providers”. This, in fact, limits the choices consumers can make.

A recent example of this is the announcement from Bupa that, from August 1, members will face higher out-of-pocket costs in private hospitals that don’t have a special relationship with the company, and some procedures will be excluded from particular policies.

Finding the best policy

If you decide to keep your private health insurance, make sure you’re getting the best deal on a policy that’s right for you. Shop around for a policy that meets your needs.

Take note of what is excluded. If you are thinking about starting a family, you may want to look at whether obstetrics care is covered. For those who are older, inclusions such as hip replacements and cataract removal may be more important.

The Australian government website PrivateHealth.gov.au or the Choice health insurance finder are good places to start. These include all registered health funds in Australia and allow you to compare what is covered in each policy.

Other “free” comparison sites may compare only some health funds and policies, or earn a fee per sale from insurers.


Read more:
Here’s what’s actually driving up health insurance premiums (hint: it’s not young people dropping off)


Before taking out extras cover, see whether you are better off to self-insure: setting aside money for if and when you need to pay for extras such as dental or optical care.

Review your policy each year and talk to your health insurance fund about your changing needs. Seek redress if something goes wrong.

If you need a procedure, find out the waiting period in the public system, rather than assuming it will be quicker in the private system. Check the out-of-pocket costs if you choose to use your private health insurance. Then you can assess whether the price tag is worth getting your surgery a few weeks earlier.

The Conversation* This article originally said more than half of Australians had private health insurance. This has now been corrected to 45.8%.

Sophie Lewis, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW and Karen Willis, Professor, Allied Health Research, Melbourne Health, LaTrobe University, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Flexible Working Hours Might Not Be So Beneficial

Flexible working hours has been championed as a way to give employees more work-life balance – however, a study found that it may not be very beneficial for workers and employers alike.

A new research from the University of Melbourne found that the ‘4/10’ arrangement, where workers do four ten-hour days per week, can actually be damaging to employee satisfaction. Around 35 per cent of surveyed workers reported low satisfaction levels.

“These kinds of arrangements can actually be damaging in some cases, with workers experiencing fatigue from the longer daily hours and working extra hours,” wrote researchers Edward Hyatt and Dr Erica Coslor.

“There are [also] other downsides of flexible work practices including social pressure to conform to more traditional roles at the same time as working a ‘flexible’ schedule, the propagation of negative stereotypes about less committed mothers, and assumptions about availability and ‘face time’ hampering promotion and development prospects.”

Hyatt said employers often apply the 4/10 arrangement in order to cut expenses on opening the office. “What they were trying to do was save money, especially on utilities,” Hyatt told the ABC. “We found out that they did save money but it was very marginal compared to what they were hoping for.”

To gain the most optimum result from compressed working week, the researchers suggest giving employees more true freedom to determine their work time.

“An example of a truly flexible work schedule might be one that allows employees to determine their work time around a core set of designated business hours,” the researchers wrote. “If everyone is working in a truly flexible manner, the stigma that can hamper careers or make women feel like they ‘have’ to be available no longer applies. And expectations around meeting times can be limited by only scheduling them during core hours.”

How to Ask for a Pay Rise

Mara Olekalns, Melbourne Business School

When Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe argued that the real source of workers’ unhappiness was an unwillingness to lobby for higher wages, he overlooked a key tenet of negotiation: we negotiate most successfully when we have highly valued (and scarce) skills.

Negotiation is all about who has the power. If your skills are not in high demand or are readily found elsewhere, you have less power. It would be unrealistic, for example, to suggest a secondary school student working on an hourly rate, or a semi-skilled factory worker whose industry is in decline, is able to negotiate higher wages.

To assert, as Lowe has, that the low jobless rate should encourage workers to ask for higher wages ignores the possibility that the jobless rate is not evenly distributed across sectors. You would only know who had the power to negotiate if you found out where the demand for skills was, sector-by-sector.

If you have skills in high demand, you should be able to negotiate a personalised employment contract that offers you a mix of economic and other benefits based on your skills. Much of the advice about renegotiating employment contracts is aimed at people who have skills to offer.

You can make your case for a pay rise by highlighting your unique skills and contributions to the organisation. You should provide a well-reasoned case for increased wages and explore some non-economic ways to enhance your overall remuneration package. A caveat on this approach is that it works better for men than for women, who violate the stereotype-based expectations that they display warmth and concern when they ask.

However, if your skills are the type that’s found elsewhere, a different strategy is called for. The traditional advice is to build your negotiating power by identifying alternative options, so you’re less dependent on your current employer.

The risk with this is your employer may decide they also have many alternatives and may be willing to lose an employee who asks for a wage increase. So the usual advice for these employees is to build alliances to strengthen their position – in short, collective bargaining.

The big ask

Here are some practical tips for negotiating a pay rise.

Prepare

Start from the perspective that more of the world is negotiable than you might expect. Be clear about what you want. Help the other person to understand what you want and why you want it.

Do your homework. Gather information about what is a reasonable pay rise and use this information to develop a strong rationale for your request.

Build the relationship

We are better able to influence others when they like us. You should establish a rapport with whomever you’re asking. Try to send them signals that you’re trustworthy and approachable. This will not only help you now but down the track.

Be sure that you don’t damage your relationships when tensions surface in a negotiation. Rather than respond negatively or competitively, use points of tension to gather more information about your boss’s rationale.

Show them you’re listening

Understanding the other person’s concerns and constraints usually results in better outcomes for both negotiators. If your boss doesn’t agree with your proposal, try to understand if something is holding him or her back. Are there external constraints that make it difficult for them to agree?

Frame your requests from the other person’s perspective. How will agreeing to your pay rise benefit them? And try to understand the reasons behind their questions.

The moral question

In the absence of a strong collective voice, recent research suggests that low-power workers may improve their outcomes if they elicit concern from their employers by, for example, expressing sadness or seeking sympathy. Appealing to an employer’s emotions may make them more open to renegotiating wages, because it shifts the framing of the request from a pragmatic (economic) perspective to a moral one.

Lowe’s comment actually raises a broader moral question: where does the onus for fair compensation lie? Placing responsibility on employees is likely to disadvantage the already disadvantaged: groups such as women, who are reluctant to ask and who are derogated when they do.

So perhaps organisations, which have a duty of care towards their employees, bear some of the responsibility for ensuring fair compensation. Employment relationships are underpinned by a social (psychological) contract and the expectation that each party will “do right” by the other.

The ConversationAt a time when company profit shares are at an all-time high and wages growth is flat, perhaps organisations should think a little harder about their side of the social contract.

Mara Olekalns, Professor of Management – Negotiations, Melbourne Business School

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Rio Tinto Appoints Simon Thompson as New Chairman

Rio Tinto has appointed former investment banker Simon Thompson to be its new chairman starting March 2018.

Serving as a non-executive director in the company’s board since 2014, Thompson will be replacing 63-year-old Jan du Plessis.

“Mr Thompson has over 20 years’ experience working across five continents in the mining and metals industry,” the mining company said in a statement. Thompson has also chaired private equity firm 3i Group and British exploration company Tullow Oil.

Du Plessis also welcomed the changeover. “I am really pleased to be succeeded by Simon, especially given how closely we have worked together since he joined the board some three years ago,” said du Plessis. “I am handing over the baton at a time when the business is in great shape and Rio Tinto has the strongest balance sheet in the sector.”

Thompson said: “I look forward to leading the board as we work with [chief executive Jean-Sebastien Jacques] and his team to ensure that Rio Tinto continues to deliver superior returns for its shareholders by maintaining its capital discipline and ‘value-over-volume’ approach.”

Upon taking over the position, Thompson is expected to deal with increased scrutiny surrounding issues like alleged coverup of losses in Mozambique in 2011 and corruption in the Republic of Guinea.

Trouble in Eden? Apple Stocks Drop

Yes, Apple stock prices have experienced a few ups and downs since the announcement of the upcoming iPhone X with certain details seemingly leaving investors not so confident in what Apple are about to bring to the table, and when. But, according to CBA, Apple stocks usually rise or fall the day of their product announcements then drops just after the launch before gaining traction a few weeks post launch and holding fairly steady from then on. Since the stocks have dropped by 0.90%, they’re still within the predictable ‘OK’ area and seem to be following the pattern so far.

Since most have forgone replacing their devices in anticipation of the upcoming Apple launches so spirits and stocks were at a predictable high withe with the announcement of the new Apple watch but dropped after the announcement of the iPhone 8 and extensive leaks of the iPhone X. Factors such as the questionable new features like the facial recognition and the potential security issues it implies, rumours of production delays for the new OLED screen and the launch delay until the next fiscal year, seem to be major contributors to the stocks’ recent drops.

Nonetheless, Apple is a brand that has built itself into a brand well known for its exclusivity with a very loyal market, often implied whenever you here ‘Apple user vs Android User’. The ‘us and them’ mentality has always been a subtle yet convincing selling point for them and there is no doubt that the queues for the iPhone 8 will still be as long as ever, with crazy campers and maybe a broken screen more.

 

Climate Change Is A Financial Risk, According to A Lawsuit Against the CBA

Anita Foerster, University of Melbourne and Jacqueline Peel, University of Melbourne

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has been in the headlines lately for all the wrong reasons. Beyond money-laundering allegations and the announcement that CEO Ian Narev will retire early, the CBA is now also being sued in the Australian Federal Court for misleading shareholders over the risks climate change poses to their business interests.

This case is the first in the world to pursue a bank over failing to report climate change risks. However, it’s building on a trend of similar actions against energy companies in the United States and United Kingdom.


Read more: Why badly behaving bankers will never fear jail time


The CBA case was filed on August 8, 2017 by advocacy group Environmental Justice Australia on behalf of two longstanding Commonwealth Bank shareholders. The case argues that climate change creates material financial risks to the bank, its business and customers, and they failed in their duty to disclose those risks to investors.

This represents an important shift. Conventionally, climate change has been treated by reporting companies merely as a matter of corporate social responsibility; now it’s affecting the financial bottom line.

What do banks need to disclose?

When banks invest in projects or lend money to businesses, they have an obligation to investigate and report to shareholders potential problems that may prevent financial success. (Opening a resort in a war zone, for example, is not an attractive proposition.)

However, banks may now have to take into account the risks posed by climate change. Australia’s top four banks are heavily involved in fossil-fuel intensive projects, but as the world moves towards renewable energy those projects may begin to look dubious.


Read more: How companies are getting smart about climate change


As the G20’s Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures recently reported, climate risks can be physical (for instance, when extreme weather events affect property or business operations) or transition risks (the effect of new laws and policies designed to mitigate climate change, or market changes as economies transition to renewable and low-emission technology).

For example, restrictions on coal mining may result in these assets being “stranded,” meaning they become liabilities rather than assets on company balance sheets. Similarly, the rise of renewable energy may reduce the life span, and consequently the value, of conventional power generation assets.

Companies who rely on the exploitation of fossil fuels face increasing transition risks. So too do the banks that lend money to, and invest in, these projects. It is these types of risks that are at issue in the case against CBA.

What did the CBA know about climate risk?

The claim filed by the CBA shareholders alleges the bank has contravened two central provisions of the Corporations Act 2001:

  • companies must include a financial report within the annual report which gives a “true and fair” view of its financial position and performance, and
  • companies must include a director’s report that allows shareholders to make an “informed assessment” of the company’s operations, financial position, business strategies and prospects.

The shareholders argue that the CBA knew – or ought to have known – that climate-related risks could seriously disrupt the bank’s performance. Therefore, investors should have been told the CBA’s strategies for managing those risks so they could make an informed decision about their investment.


Read more: We need a Royal Commission into the banks


The claim also zeros in on the lengthy speculation over whether the CBA would finance the controversial Adani Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. (The bank has since ruled out financing the mine.) The shareholders assert that the resulting “controversy and concern” was a major risk to the CBA’s business.

Global litigation trends

While the CBA case represents the first time worldwide that a financial institution has been sued for misleading disclosure of climate risk, the litigation builds on a broader global trend. There have been a number of recent legal actions in the United States, seeking to enforce corporate risk disclosure obligations in relation to climate change:

Energy giant Exxon Mobile is currently under investigation by the Attorneys General of New York and California over the company’s disclosure practices. At the same time, an ongoing shareholder class action alleges that Exxon Mobile failed to disclose internal reports about the risks climate change posed to their oil and gas reserves, and valued those assets artificially high.

Similar pathways are being pursued in the UK, where regulatory complaints have been made about the failure of major oil and gas companies SOCO International and Cairn Energy to disclose climate-related risks, as required by law.

In this context, the CBA case represents a widening of litigation options to include banks, as well as energy companies. It is also the first attempt in Australia to use the courts to clarify how public listed companies should disclose climate risks in their annual reports.

Potential for more litigation

This global trend suggests more companies are likely to face these kinds of lawsuits in the future. Eminent barrister Noel Hutley noted in October 2016 that many prominent Australian companies, including banks that lend to major fossil fuel businesses, are not adequately disclosing climate change risks.

The ConversationHutley predicted that it’s likely only a matter of time before we see a company director sued for failing to perceive or react to a forseeable climate-related risk. The CBA case is the first step towards such litigation.

Anita Foerster, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne and Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Environmental and Climate Law, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Australians Are Working Longer So They Can Pay Off Their Mortgage Debt

Rachel Ong, Curtin University; Gavin Wood, RMIT University; Kadir Atalay, University of Sydney, and Melek Cigdem-Bayram, RMIT University

Rising mortgage debt is affecting everything from employment to spending, as Australians approach retirement, our study finds. Higher levels of housing debt among pre-retirees are linked to them working for longer.

We found for a home owner aged 45-64 years, the chances of being employed are around 40% higher for every additional A$100,000 in mortgage debt owed against the family home.

There’s also a link between house price changes and household spending. For every A$100,000 increase in the value of a person’s house, annual household spending of home owners increased by around A$1,500. These home owners are willing to increase their spending because they’re able to borrow more against their home to finance it.

Long-run trends in mortgage debt

Australians are paying down their mortgages later in life. The percentage of home owners aged 25 years or over who are carrying a mortgage debt climbed from 42% to 56% between 1990 and 2013.

Mortgage debt burdens among pre-retirees have soared. For home owners aged 45-54 years, the incidence of mortgage debt has nearly doubled from 36% to 71%. Among those aged 55-64 years, this incidence has more than tripled from 14% to 44%.

These trends reflect at least two things. Higher housing cost burdens have resulted in a decline in home ownership rates among young people. Those able to access home ownership are doing so later in life and by taking on higher levels of debt relative to their incomes.

Flexible mortgage products also now allow home owners to unlock wealth stored in the family home whenever required, and not just their retirement years.

Higher mortgage debts, longer working lives

Australians are working longer because they are paying down their mortgages later in life.

Our modelling, based on the 2001-2010 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey data, shows that pre-retirees aged 55-64 years are 18% more likely to continue working for every A$100,000 increase in their mortgage debt.

On the one hand, unexpected increases in housing prices could have caused buyers considering home ownership to borrow more in order to buy a house, and encouraged homeowners to spend more by withdrawing the equity from their homes. These mortgagors then have to extend their working lives to meet higher mortgage repayments.

On the other hand, longer life expectancy may have encouraged many Australians to plan longer working lives. Carrying higher levels of mortgage debt later in life could be a financial tactic to finance their spending over a longer lifespan.

Borrowing more, spending more?

Our analysis found some differences between subgroups of home owners and between periods preceding and following the global financial crisis.

Before the global financial crisis highly indebted home buyers were more prepared to use their mortgages in order to bridge the gap between spending plans and income. After the crisis, home buyers with large mortgages were less willing to use their mortgages in this way.

In contrast, the spending plans of indebted households who both own their home and a second investment property seem more sensitive to house price movements since the global financial crisis. Property investors with mortgage debt increased their average yearly spending after the crisis from A$1,700 to over A$2,800 for every A$100,000 increase in their housing wealth.

On the other hand, for home owners with no investment properties, average yearly spending tightened from A$1,700 to A$1,500 for every A$100,000 increase in their housing wealth. This suggests investors with debt are not so risk-averse as other homeowners.

Housing, productivity and the economy

Mortgage debts have important economy-wide effects through interactions with labour markets and consumer spending.

Ageing is often associated with lower rates of labour force participation and declining physical and mental health, which can result in reduced productivity growth. If people are extending their working lives to repay higher mortgage debt, this could mitigate some of the productivity consequences of population ageing, albeit at the expense of greater exposure to debt in later life.

When real house values are rising, home owners and property investors are able to borrow more against their home to finance their spending. In the short run this can help offset the effect of stagnant wages (on their spending) and thereby sustain growth momentum in the economy.

But if wages fail to pick up, these higher levels of debt can be a drag on growth. High levels of indebtedness also increase exposure to house price and interest rate risk, and pose a threat to macroeconomic stability.

The ConversationOur research makes a compelling case for considering housing differently, as essential economic infrastructure. Housing needs to be re-positioned from the periphery to a central place within national economic policy debates. This could be crucial to an understanding of how our housing system can promote rather than curb economic growth in Australia.

Rachel Ong, Deputy Director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University; Gavin Wood, Emeritus Professor of Housing and Housing Studies, RMIT University; Kadir Atalay, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney, and Melek Cigdem-Bayram, Research Fellow, RMIT University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

News: Labor Vows to Reverse Penalty Rate Cuts

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has pledged to reverse the cuts to Sunday penalty rates if Labor wins the upcoming election.

Cuts to weekend penalty rates for workers in retail, hospitality and fast food industry will be applied starting July 1, under a decision by the Fair Work Commission.

“I promise you this: a new Labor government will restore the Sunday penalty rates of every single worker affected by this cut,” Shorten said at an address to the Australian Council of Trade Unions in Sydney Tuesday night.

Labor’s bill to block the cuts was voted down 73 to 72 in Parliament in June.

Labor employment spokesperson Brendan O’Connor said the party will continue to fight against the cuts when parliament resumes in August.

Earlier this month, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash accused Shorten of hypocrisy on the matter.

“Bill Shorten has no problem with reducing penalty rates when he himself does it, and when his union mates do it in deals with big businesses,” said Cash. “He only objects when an independent umpire does the same thing for small business.”

‘The Way They Manipulate People is Really Saddening’: Study Shows the Trade-Offs in Gig Work

Sarah Kaine, University of Technology Sydney; Alex Veen, RMIT University; Caleb Goods, University of Western Australia, and Emmanuel Josserand, University of Technology Sydney

Uber driver Michelle, thinks her job is fantastic when she’s only after part-time hours. But she’s given it a couple of months and she says she’s not getting anywhere.

To be able to earn A$800 she has to actually pull in A$1,500, averaging 70 hours a week. The money per hour can be good, but only when it really picks up. Looking at the current job market, she doesn’t want to do two full-time jobs to make the same amount of money that she used to earn in an office, working half the time.

She feels exhausted. She used to think people in Melbourne were good drivers, but now that she’s been driving all day, she sees a fair amount of aggression. Six weeks ago she was trying to merge into traffic and a man in a ute next to her showed her a crowbar.

Her latest day off she spent sleeping because she was so tired.

Michelle (not her real name) was one of our study participants. We interviewed 60 ridesharing and food delivery workers like her. And the reality of their experiences is far more nuanced than others make out.

Work in the “gig economy” is often depicted as flexible by businesses and those who run the platforms that offer work, or as exploitative by labour activists and commentators.

A key finding is that gig workers arbitrate between the costs and benefits of gig work. Many interviewees preferred their gig work over other forms of low-paid work (most commonly cleaning, hospitality, retail) because of abusive bosses, underpayment, and underemployment. In comparison, gig work is seen by these workers as providing a more appealing work environment.

While some rideshare drivers note they need to work long hours to earn the equivalent of a full-time wage, they also emphasise their enjoyment of their rideshare work. One food delivery worker summed it up:

It is more flexible. You can do whatever you want. You are on the street talking to the people enjoying. You can do exercise as well on the bicycle. And, it is good money.

Despite these workers’ sense that there are opportunities in gig work – their experience was not overwhelmingly positive. There was a group of workers who felt marginalised, had few choices, and the gig work was a last resort.

These workers saw gig work as a stopgap measure while they looked for “real” jobs. In these cases they were doing it because it got them out of the house, to supplement their income or before starting their own business.

Social versus isolating

The workers in the study saw social interactions as part of their gig work as one of the more enjoyable aspects. What varied between rideshare and food delivery workers was how these interactions took place.

Food delivery drivers often end up crossing paths during their shifts and informally waiting together. As one worker summed up:

You end up knowing most of the riders, because you see them pretty often. You kind of speak with each other, and there is a social club.

By contrast rideshare drivers noted that their work could be quite physically isolating. Some drivers engaged in online forums with other drivers but would never meet up with them. Despite limited social interaction with other drivers, rideshare drivers reported that this is where they derived most of their job satisfaction.

Freedom versus control

The drivers we interviewed expressed a sense of freedom and flexibility because they had “no boss, no set hours”. However, the flip side of this was a sense of limited control over work. As one food delivery worker described:

I currently fit my life around their work…obviously I have to work around busy times – lunch and dinnertime.

Both delivery riders and rideshare drivers – found that only particular pockets of time across the day were profitable. This was usually lunch and dinner times, especially weekends for food delivery, and weekends and evenings for rideshare drivers. So while their options to sign on or off the app (the platform that employed them) were flexible, realistically their productive working hours were determined by patterns of consumer demand.

Both the rideshare and food delivery platforms also unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of engagement, which directly affected earning potential. Both groups of workers expressed particular concern about the periodic increases in the commission taken by the platform, reporting cuts to earnings of up to 15%. One driver lamented:

The way they [the platform] manipulate people….is really saddening.

Ridesharing workers were also concerned about being financially over-committed due to the cost associated with purchasing and running a vehicle. This financial burden, coupled with continued changing rules of game, and the capacity for these platforms to arbitrarily “deactivate them” led to anxiety and frustration. One worker described this:

It used to be good before they did all the price cuts and started treating their drivers like trash. We have had 30% cuts since I came on board whilst demand hasn’t matched supply. I make around $10 an hour.

Best of a bad lot

Our emerging findings suggest gig workers often understand the trade-offs between the positive and negative features of their work but see this as a reality of their position within the labour market.

A number of our interviewees felt exploited and/or would prefer better paying “real jobs”, validating the concern on regulation, pay and conditions in this industry. But, gig work allows these workers to meet their immediate needs and gives them a sense of being their own boss.

The ConversationThe gig workers enjoyed the high levels of autonomy in their work, and many of them saw their gigs as the best in a market characterised by low paid jobs.

 

Sarah Kaine, Associate Professor UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation, University of Technology Sydney; Alex Veen, Lecturer – Early Career Development Fellow, RMIT University; Caleb Goods, Lecturer – Management and Organisations, UWA Business School, University of Western Australia, and Emmanuel Josserand, Professor of management, University of Technology Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.