Part-time or contingent employment: the Australian experience, 1994-2014.

Caddy, Ian

INTRODUCTION

The Australian economy and its associated labour force have both experienced a long period of positive outcomes. Both annual and quarterly growth in Australia's gross domestic product has been predominantly positive since 1994. In addition both annual and quarterly growth in GDP per capita has also been predominantly positive since 1994 and well above the average OECD per capita income (OECD, 2014). Thinking beyond just the economic data, the OECD compiles the Better Life Index which includes factors such as community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, housing, income, jobs, life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance. Based on the information compiled about Australians for the Better Life Index, OECD (2014) found that 83% of Australians had more positive than negative experiences on an average day which was 7% higher than the overall OECD average of 76%. That is, Australians had more feelings of peace or restfulness, more pride in getting things done and more enjoyment in their lives compared to people living in other OECD countries; there was also less worry, sadness and boredom compared with people living in other OECD countries (OECD, 2014). Australians have a greater life expectancy (both men and women) than the OECD averages; Australia has less air pollution and better water quality than equivalent averages for other OECD countries (OECD, 2014).

With respect to working experiences, the percentage of Australians with a paying job is higher than the OECD average and average annual hours worked is less than the OECD average (OECD, 2014). Furthermore, the overall size of the Australian labour force has increased for each quarter since 1994 as well as levels of labour force participation. Unemployment has experienced varying levels but has mainly been under 6% since 1994 as well. On the basis of these data, we may truly believe that Australia is indeed the lucky country and is a place to live in comfort and relative stability. However, like all economic series, while the aggregate levels are positive the whole story is not necessarily portrayed. For example, Caddy and Mortimer (2012, 2013) examined levels of unemployment by local government areas and found significant differences between those local government areas with low social disadvantage (low unemployment rates) compared to local government areas with high social disadvantage (high unemployment rates).

The analysis presented in this paper demonstrates that there has been a fundamental shift from mainly full-time employment to a significant amount of work in Australia being completed by part-time employees. Some of these employees are happy to do only part-time work; on the other hand a significant proportion of part-time workers aspire to full-time employment. Some contingent workers may do quite well (professionals and skilled workers whose knowledge or skills are in high demand); while other contingent workers may not do so well. What is not contestable is the fact that despite Australia's record of economic growth across the last two decades, contingent work and workers remain a substantial proportion of the overall labour force. Given that economic growth and good economic management appear to have done little to reduce the numbers of part-time workers compared with full time jobs, it is argued that government policies and regulations need to consider the organisational and social shift of workers having entire careers of part-time or contingent work rather than full-time employment.

Australia's past and recent economic performance

As already stated, Australia has had an enviable record of consistent economic growth over the last two decades. As shown in Figure 1 below, there have only been two quarters with zero growth (in the 1990s) and three quarters which have experienced negative growth--one in the 1990s and two related to the global financial crisis. While growth in other countries such as China has occurred at higher rates, there is no other country in the world that can claim the same level of consistent growth.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

As indicated by Figure 2 below, this economic growth has also been matched by two decades of low inflation; indeed, over the last two decades, annual inflation has mainly been within the Reserve Bank of Australia's stated objective of maintaining the inflation rate to within the range of 2 and 3 per cent.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Further, as shown in Figure 3 below, there has been a consistent upward trend in GDP per capita despite an increasing Australian population (due mainly to net migration rather than natural increase).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Finally, as Figure 4 shows, there has also been increasing participation in the Australian labour force (although this peaked prior to the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008 but has remained above levels experienced in the 1990s).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

So the data shown in these tables support the conclusion that Australia has enjoyed a significant period of sustained good economic performance. With these sorts of outcomes one would expect that all Australians would be quite satisfied with their lives, that they are achieving personal financial goals and that they are comfortable about their future. Yet at an aggregate level there are other data that would indicate all is not well across all Australians. To take just one example, Figure 5 below, shows changes in an index of Australian consumer sentiment (1980 = 100). This figure shows that Australians have not been consistently confident in terms of personal spending across the last two decades having at times some concerns about their personal financial circumstances.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

In this graph consumer sentiment ranges from positive (where index values are greater than 100) to negative (where index values are less than 100). Given good economic performance over this period, why hasn't consumer sentiment always been above 100 for the same period? The answer to this question is that, like employment, the gains from economic growth are not evenly distributed across the whole of the Australian population. That is, there are winners out of economies which have experienced sustained economic performance just as much as there are losers. For example, using the data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey on Income and Housing (ABS, 2013), those households within the top 20% of Australians ranked by wealth (average net worth of $AUD2.2 million) own 61% of total Australian household net worth, while those households within the bottom 20% (average net worth of $AUD31,205) account for only 1% of total Australian household net worth. Therefore, while high-level overall economic aggregates tell one story, it is often necessary to look beyond the summary economic indicators to gain a better understanding of what they mean to ordinary individuals or groups of individuals.

This paper will further examine the 'unevenness' across those people employed in Australia, particularly in terms of comparing the differences between full-time and part-time workers employed by Australian organisations. It will question what is meant by 'full-time' employment as the standard that all workers aspire to; it will also determine if this type of employment is rapidly becoming an anachronism, being replaced with a multiplicity of different employment experiences. This paper will focus on part-time employment, or what many researchers refer to as contingent employment, and will consider many issues such as the fact that there are many categories of contingent employment. What may be seen as benefits of adopting this work choice may for other categories be seen as a definite disadvantage. One example of a disadvantage is the issue of social and income inequality within the Australian labour force noted above. If economic growth has not diminished contingent employment, should governments and government regulation look more towards ensuring equality of opportunity for Australians in general?

Part-time, itinerant or contingent employment

The notion and the reality of part-time employment, as it has grown when compared with full-time employment, has meant that it is a topic of interest for many researchers working on labour force issues for developed (mainly Western) economies. For example, de Graaf-Zijl (2012) found that there were different levels of job satisfaction between four different groups of contingent workers, viz., contract workers on open-ended contracts (indefinite termination date); contract workers on fixed-term contracts (defined termination date); workers on on-call contracts; and temporary agency workers. These groups align with what Martsuik and Hill (1998) consider are contingent workers. De Graaf-Zijl (2012) uses the term 'on-call workers' for those contingent employees that are called into work when required and are not paid otherwise. In the Netherlands, typically an on-call worker was a mother who wished to combine family commitments with opportunities to work in short-term assignments; it was also up to the on-call worker whether or not they would agree to do the work. In the UK this type of worker would be on a zero-hour contract. This type of contract creates an 'on-call' work arrangement in which the employer is not obliged to provide any work while the employee agrees to make themselves available (eg be contacted by telephone call) as and when work is required. The on-call worker only gets paid for the work done and not for any hours where they are 'on-call'. While this arrangement may be suitable for retirees or students who want intermittent work, it would unsuitable for many other groups of workers. The use of the term 'on-call' in the Netherlands and the UK is different from how it is used in Australia, where it mainly applies to full-time employees (usually professionals such as doctors or IT specialists) who will be required to return back to work if called. In this situation there is usually no flexibility on the part of the on-call worker to refuse to work.

There are three interesting points to emerge from the de Graaf-Zijl (2012) study. First, although not explicitly stated, there is an implied (and so untested) assertion that contingent workers have less job satisfaction than fulltime employees. Indeed, substantial confounding would be present in any such comparison as there may be a significant proportion of contingent workers satisfied with their current job; and equally there may be a significant proportion of full-time workers who are not satisfied with their current job (D'Addio, Eriksson & Frijters, 2007). Rather than comparing job satisfaction with the current work done, the correct question of contingent workers would be: "Do you prefer your current working arrangements or would you prefer a full-time job?" Second, the label 'contingent worker' does not identify a homogeneous group but rather a collection of quite distinct sub-groups. Just as these different groups demonstrated different levels of job satisfaction, one could presume that there would be different expectations about current and future work between these different contingent employee groups. Finally, the four categories identified by de Graaf-Zijl (2012) do not form an exhaustive list of the different contingent employee groups. Capelli and Keller (2013, p. 583), in addition to providing an excellent review into contingent employment, also develop a more extensive list of work arrangements which starts with "Fulltime employees" in which their employer is the organisation that they work for; the employer organises and controls the work flow and outcomes required by these workers; their employer is responsible for setting wages or salaries and paying them; and their employer also ensures the work by these employees complies with all appropriate regulatory requirements. All other employees are seen as contingent workers which include:

* part-time employees (similar to full-time employees but usually working less than 35 hours per week)

* on-call employees (similar to part-time employees but working for the organisation only when needed)

* direct hire temporary employees (seen as different from part-time and on-call employees as they work only for a specific period of time, eg seasonal workers or itinerant workers and labourers)

* professional employment organisations (PEOs involved in completing work outsourced from another organisation with the workers being employees of the outsourcer or PEO)

* leased employees (which are similar to PEOs but the work is seen as short-term, whereas for a PEO work is usually seen as long-term)

* agency temporary workers (who are used similarly to on-call employees, but these workers are employed by an agency rather than the organisation for which the work is done)

* independent contractors (who, in Australia, are not really considered employees except in situations where the contractual arrangements are not deemed to be really independent--so called 'sham' work contracts)

* day labourers (similar to on-call employees but hired to do a specific job), and

* vendor-on-premises (where work is outsourced to another organisation but the actual work is completed on site by the outsourcer).

However, even the list developed by Capelli and Keller (2013) is not exhaustive. For example, Schwartz (2013) discusses the recent and dramatic rise of intern positions within many US corporations where interns may work very long hours and receive either no pay or very little pay (see also Perlin, 2011). In many respects internships are possibly the most precarious of all contingent employment types. For example, Schwartz (2013, p. 41) claims:

   The intern's obscurity and uncertainty characterize a labour force
   that has grown more contingent, relying on part-time, unstable, and
   insecure work. Interns will work for months without pay, benefits,
   or basic workplace protection. It's not unheard of for students
   with advanced degrees to take on internships, and, on the opposite
   end of the educational spectrum, for companies to characterize
   their workers as interns in order to not compensate them. Foxconn,
   the Taiwanese electronics maker, took on fourteen-year-old students
   as "interns" to build the iPhone 5.

It should also be pointed out that organisations need to be wary to ensure they do not exploit interns. The Federal Court of Australia is currently hearing a case against Crocmedia, a sports broadcaster, who employed an intern for six months in which this contingent worker worked night shifts on seven days out of ten, producing radio broadcasts and was paid nothing for this work. Court documents indicate that this worker should have been paid at least $18 per hour for every hour worked (Innis, 2014).

From the above discussion it would appear that there may be difficulty in developing an all-embracing definition of who is a contingent employee (Bolton, Houlihan & Laaser, 2012). It may be easier to define these types of workers by exception; that is, develop a definition of what full-time work or a full-time worker is and then any work or worker that does not meet this definition should then be considered a contingent employee or worker. Way, Lepak, Fay and Thacker (2010) use the term 'standard employee' (essentially seen as a full-time employee) based on the work of earlier researchers (Connelly & Gallagher, 2004; Kalleberg, 2000; Kalleberg, Reskin, & Hudson, 2000). Capelli and Keller (2013, p. 575) also use this term, 'standard employee', in their work, stating that these are the workers engaged in "regular full-time work". In addition to the criteria outlined above, Capelli and Keller (2013, p. 575) state that a 'standard employee' is expected to work a fixed number of hours per week (although for workers earning wages they may be able to supplement their wage with overtime work), and a standard employee also has the expectation of on-going employment with their employer, subject supposedly to continued good work performance.

If this definition is sound, then any worker with an employment contract that does not have these four conditions should be seen as a contingent employee. Although not explicitly stated, it is also assumed that all four conditions must be met. For example, shearers are under the supervision of their employer, do their shearing in the shearing sheds of their employer, and when shearing, work on a full-time basis. However, there is no expectation of indefinite work with the one employer as shearers move between different employers once the sheep for one employer are shorn. Furthermore, shearing is seasonal and so these workers do not work the whole year, there again not meeting the expectation of indefinite future work. Indeed, shearers are often seen as the classic itinerant worker (Waterhouse, 2000) and so would be seen as contingent workers. On the other hand, take the case of non-executive directors. These people work for an organisation, usually a corporation, and do their work at the place of the corporation; they are not considered to work on a full-time basis, as normally board meetings occur only once a month nor are they supervised as they are appointed to the board to provide an independent overview of senior management for their corporation. However, they do not work entirely unconstrained as their actions and responsibilities are subject to the corporation's constitution and other regulatory frameworks, such as relevant sections of Australian corporations law. Finally, non-executive directors have to offer themselves for re-election periodically, and so do not have an expectation of continuity of employment. So should non-executive directors be seen as contingent employees rather than as standard employees? Or could an argument be developed that non-executive directors should not be seen as employees at all? If they are not employees then what are they, because most corporations pay these people quite handsomely (Caddy, 2012)?

It is worth noting that in order to avoid many of these definitional problems, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) adopts the exception approach when defining a part-time employee. According to the ABS, a full-time employee is someone who worked 35 hours or more in the reference week (the week that the labour force survey interviewer will ask questions about). If the person being interviewed for the Australian labour force survey states that they worked less than 35 hours in the reference week then they are seen as a part-time employee irrespective of the type of work contract that applies to them. However, while avoiding definitional problems, by adopting this approach the ABS does lose the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of what it means to be a contingent worker. For example, what are the expectations for future work and future career aspirations of the different groups of contingent workers? As more and more work is performed by contingent workers one would expect that more information about their work both currently and in the past should be collected and so made available for further analysis.

Why organisations use part-time or contingent employees

Bolton, Houlihan and Laaser (2012) claim that economic volatility is a significant driver of contingent employment, but the analysis shown below would indicate otherwise. Rather than contingent employment being driven solely by economic downturns, it would appear that there are other more relevant factors at work. For instance, there are two arguments developed by Way, et al., (2010) that may provide some insight into why organisations would use contingent workers. The first is that contingent workers allow organisations to have more stability in their use of full-time employees! That is, all the variability in the organisation's workforce is now focussed on the quantum of contingent employees rather than the total number of employees (Cappelli & Neumark, 2004). Contingent workers come and go and so are ephemeral in the work that they do for an organisation. By organisations using contingent workers in this way, full-time employees have a greater chance of keeping their jobs, particularly when business volumes suffer a downturn; in these circumstances the organisation first gets rid of its contingent employees. It also means that the organisation can treat part of its overall labour costs as variable rather than fixed. As business volumes increase, so more contingent workers are hired; or as business volumes decrease, some or all contingent workers are terminated or not offered further work.

The second argument is that contingent workers provide employers with lower cost workers, as they may not require training, are not paid leave entitlements, etc. (Houseman, 2001); it may also diminish possible future pay increases by their standard employees. The term 'workforce mixing' has been used to describe these benefits that organisations gain through using contingent workers in these ways (Cardon, 2003; Lepak and Snell, 2002; Lepak, et al., 2003).

Besides these advantages there is another possible advantage for organisations using contingent workers. These organisations may be able to exert greater control over their full-time employees in terms of their work ethic, their punctuality and their use of other employee entitlements such as sick leave and annual leave: "rock the boat too much and I will make your position contingent". However, there are risks associated with adopting this approach: full-time or standard employees may begin to act like contingent employees with respect to their level of commitment to their employer and their attitude to their work. As Way, et al., (2010, p. 127) conclude:

   From a practical perspective, this research suggests that firms
   should seriously question using contingent workers simply to cut
   costs and should analyze the trade-off in saved labour costs with
   the additional costs associated with standard employee absenteeism
   and turnover. It may be that communicating the reasons for using
   contingent workers and assurances that even though cost saving is
   the purpose, such savings allow the continued employment of
   standard employees, would ameliorate standard employee concerns and
   lessen standard employee withdrawal behaviors.

That is, organisations need to emphasise how contingent workers can provide stability for the organisation's standard employee workforce rather than link using contingent works as purely a labour cost-saving strategy. What this study (Way, et al., 2010) implies, is that there is a move away from considering contingent workers from a purely economic standpoint to one that includes organisational factors as well. Obviously understanding the impact of contingent workers on standard workers is important. Even back in 2005, estimates of the proportion of contingent workers in the US labour force ranged from 11% to 34% (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005). More recently, in Australia, Cummins (2014) has claimed that Australia ranks fourth in the world in using contingent workers and that the proportion of contingent workers in the Australian labour force will increase to 50% by 2020.

Time series analysis of contingent employment in Australia

The analysis shown in this section is based on two time series statistical collections compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, viz., Labour Force, Australia (Catalogue no. 6202.0), which derives its data from the monthly labour force survey, with the latest release being for October 2014 (ASBa, 1994-2014); and Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product (Catalogue no. 5206.0), which publishes quarterly economic data derived from a number of sources, with the latest release being for September quarter 2014 (ABSb, 1994-2014). In both cases the time series data used from these statistical series are the trend estimates (extracted from the statistical time series spreadsheets supporting these publications), rather than either the original series or the seasonally adjusted series (where these data are available). The reason in using trend data is that the analysis is looking across a significant period of time (two decades) to determine if there have been fundamental changes in things such as the percentage of part-time employees within the overall Australian labour force. That is, although it would be interesting to consider the seasonal fluctuations that occur within the part-time labour force, this sort of analysis is beyond the scope of the current study.

Figure 6 shown below looks at how the Australian labour force has changed over the last two decades. What is noticeable is an increase in both the number of full-time employees as well as approximately the same increase in the number of part-time employees, and that with the economic growth experienced over this period there has not been any real decrease in the use of part-time employees. That is, economic growth in Australia has not meant that more full-time work opportunities have developed to replace opportunities for part-time work. Furthermore, while many of the unemployed gave up looking for full-time work during the economic boom years of 2000 to 2007, the number of people unemployed but looking for part-time work did not materially change either up or down. These data would appear to indicate that, as employers experienced good business conditions, they looked towards employing both more part-time workers as well as fulltime workers. So it would appear then that part-time or contingent employment is a permanent feature of the Australian labour force; it represents a fundamental shift in either the way people wish to work or in the way employers wish to offer work.

These data also provide evidence to counter the claims by Bolton, Houlihan and Laaser (2012), that economic volatility (or uncertainty) drives contingent employment. If we can draw anything from the Australian experience, economic growth rather than volatility has driven contingent employment. However, if the basic components of the Australian labour force have changed does this mean there is now greater flexibility demonstrated by this labour force? That is, is there greater movement between full-time employment and part-time employment (or vice versa) or between part-time employment and active participation in the labour force (or vice versa)? The data presented in Figure 6 below looks at the level of volatility for both full-time and part-time employment with the proportion of part-time workers within the Australia labour force acting as the tracking series.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Figure 7 below looks at the level of volatility in people looking for part-time work and overall labour force participation volatility; the percentage of the labour force looking for part-time work is used as the tracking series. For Figure 7 there appears to be little change in volatility levels for full-time employed workers and part-time employed workers and no discernible trend either to higher volatility levels or lower levels. Apart from the peak in volatility of people looking for full-time work associated with the global financial crisis, again for this time series there does not appear to be any discernible trend to either more or less volatility. For Figure 8 again there appears to be little volatility in people looking for part-time work; if anything, a there appears to be a reduction in labour participation volatility from the commencement of the global financial crisis. So overall, if would appear that there is less flexibility in the Australian labour market even though there are more people working as contingent employees.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

Finally, Figures 9 and 10 look at Australian national accounts time series data compared with underlying changes in the Australian labour force. There is a difference between the analysis shown in Figures 5 to 8, which are based on the monthly labour force survey, and the analysis shown in the figures below. As national accounts data are compiled as a quarterly statistical series and not a monthly series, a subset of the monthly labour force data was selected to produce a quarterly time series in order to make the comparisons shown. In doing this there are two comments to make about whether these data are comparable. First, as both time series are point estimates rather than measuring economic flows, this reconciliation of labour force data with national accounts data did not require any further calculation (such as compiling a quarterly average from the monthly data). Second, labour force data are collected by surveying respondents over two weeks beginning from the first Sunday that falls between the 5th and the 11th of that month. The interviews collect data on what is called the reference week which is the week preceding the interview. That is, the reference week is either the first week (usually) or the second week (infrequently) of the month. National accounts data are as at the end of the quarter; so March quarter data are as at 31st of March. Therefore, the analysis provided below compares labour force data for the month following the end of the quarter. That is, national accounts data for the March quarter are aligned with monthly labour force data for April (a week later); while June quarter has been aligned with July labour force data, September quarter with October labour force data and December quarter with January labour force data for the following year.

Figure 9 looks at changes in GDP per capita and changes in real gross domestic income over the last two decades using the proportion of part-time employees in the labour force acting as a tracking series. Looking at the trend lines for both national accounts time series, and ignoring the negative impact caused by the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, it would appear that the increasing use of part-time workers has not had a positive effect on overall economic performance. While the Australian economy grew, its rate of growth declined; so developing a more flexible workforce may not mean that economies perform better. However, more analysis would be needed to determine if increasing use of part-time workers in Australia is the sole factor causing the decline in the rate of economic growth over the last twenty years.

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

Figure 10 below looks at changes in the 'Hours worked per GDP index' and changes in the 'Real labour costs index' again using the proportion of part-time employees in the overall Australian labour force as a tracking series. Looking at the trend lines for both national accounts time series, the data indicate that flexibility in the labour force due to the increasing presence of part-time or contingent employees has had little impact in Australia on the quantum of hours worked. If anything, the rate of change in hours per GDP seems to have slightly decreased over the last two decades indicating that the labour force overall does less. Furthermore, the slight increase in the rate of change for real labour costs indicates that having more contingent workers in the labour force has not exerted downward pressure on labour costs. Again it should be emphasised that both of these effects are only slight.

[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION: USE OF PART-TIME OR CONTINGENT EMPLOYEES IN AUSTRALIA

Comparing the overall performance of the Australia economy shown at the beginning of this paper with the data shown in the section above, it would appear that economic growth has driven growth within the Australia labour force for both full-time jobs as well as part-time jobs. That is, even with the economic growth experienced in Australia, there has not been a replacement of contingent work with full-time work. Even though there is some evidence to indicate that overall efficiency of the Australian labour force has declined with the use of more contingent workers, employers have used these sorts of workers more and more. Furthermore, the data indicate that cost savings through the use of contingent workers has not occurred. So it would appear that Australian employers are misinformed if they believe that a more flexible workforce ensures they have better control over their labour costs. So why is contingent work so entrenched, and indeed a growing component of the Australian labour force? It would appear that Australian employers, possibly unknowingly, align themselves with the other argument for using contingent employees. It may be that Australian employers use contingent workers to provide flexibility in managing the size of their workforce, employing more contingent workers in good economic times and less contingent workers when the economy is performing poorly, while maintaining levels of full-time employees.

The data shown in Figure 7 above indicates a certain level of maturity by Australian employers in how they manage their workforces. For instance there is little difference in the volatility associated with full-time workers when compared to part-time workers in Australia over the last two decades. Furthermore, from an employees' point of view, the volatility of contingent workers looking for full-time work, although greater than the volatility of the part-time component of the labour force, is not significantly greater--with the exception of the years related to the global financial crisis. Contingent workers appear to be reconciled with their current circumstances and that at the moment contingent employment is the only feasible form of employment available to them. This view is reinforced when looking at the volatility in part-time employment and participation in the labour force shown in Figure 7. There is no real association between the two, indicating that it is just as likely for a full-time employee who loses their job to leave the Australian labour force as it is for a contingent employee who loses their job.

LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT RESEARCH

As already discussed, there are some limitations in the statistical data that can be compiled from the Australian labour force survey. For example, people are first classified as employed if they worked more than one hour in the reference week. For those people who meet this criterion, they are then classified as full-time if they worked 35 or more hours in the reference week; if they worked less than 35 hours (but more than one hour) in the reference week, then they are classified as a part-time employee. There is no further disaggregation of part-time employees into the contingent employment categories as outlined in Capelli and Keller (2013). So we are unable to determine the types of contingent employment that occur in Australia and their development or otherwise over time. Then there is also the vexed question about how quasi-employees, such as interns or volunteers, are treated; are they part of the Australian labour force because these groups do actual work? or are they not a part of the Australian labour force because they do not receive payment for this work? Another limitation in labour force survey data is the number of jobs that respondents held in the reference week. For example, a respondent may hold what they consider to be two part-time jobs in the reference week but actually worked 35 hours or more in this week when the hours for both jobs are added together; if this is the case then they are considered to be a full-time employee rather than a part-time employee with two jobs. That is, the definition of a 'standard employee' described in the literature review above does not apply to labour force data compiled and published in Australia.

Although the literature review, analysis and discussion in this paper provides further insight into the use and nature of contingent employment in Australia, there are also a number of interesting issues that were beyond the scope of this paper. One important issue is the concept of under-employment and its relationship with contingent workers. There are possibly some contingent workers who are happy with their current working arrangements, but this is not the case for all contingent workers. Those contingent workers who are not happy with their current work arrangements are normally considered to be under-employed. This area of the labour force within Australia will be the subject of further research in which the following questions (amongst others) will be addressed: (a) the current level of under-employment and what changes have occurred in this level over time; (b) the main issues that people under-employed wish to address such as job security, level of remuneration, etc; and (c) the association of under-employment with social disadvantage. For example, given sustained economic growth in Australia, has the level of under-employment reduced over time or is there persistence in underemployment that is resistant to mere economic growth? How many jobs do the under-employed need to ensure a reasonable living standard?

CONCLUSION

The aim of this paper was to gain an up-to-date insight into contingent employment within the Australian economy. Australia presents an almost unique case within the world economy in having had almost continuous economic growth over the last two decades and so presented an interesting focus for analysing trends related to this form of employment. The literature review conducted to support the analysis indicated that contingent employment is still a topic of interest to researchers. The literature review found that while full-time or standard employment is quite easily defined, contingent employment occurs across a number of different employment relationships. This has led to an exception approach to determining what working arrangements should to be seen as contingent; that is, contingent work is work that does not meet the requirements of full-time or standard employment. The literature review also indicated that employers use contingent workers in order to maintain stability within their full-time workers; or contingent workers are used to control the overall cost of labour.

Analysis which used both Australian labour force and national accounts statistical time series compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that there was little evidence to support the view that increasing use of contingent employees was associated with economic downturns or that contingent workers contributed to overall control of labour costs. In addition, it would appear that there is not a lot of support for the notion that contingent workers are managed to ensure more stability in employers' full-time workforces. It would appear that when looking at the volatility associated with contingent employment in Australia, it should be seen as part of the normal labour force landscape--both from an employer perspective as well as a worker perspective. There were limitations discussed about the analysis presented as well as further research, particularly in the area of underemployment that will be undertaken as part of future research activity, but was considered beyond the scope of this particular paper.

REFERENCES

ABSa (1994-2014), Labour Force, Australia, Oct 2014, Catalogue no. 6202.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABSb (1994-2014), Australian National Accounts: Income, Expenditure and Product, Sept 2014, Catalogue no. 5206.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS (2013), Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia, 2011-12, Catalogue no. 6523.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

Bolton, S.C. Houlihan, M. & Laaser, K. (2012), 'Contingent Work and Its Contradictions: Towards a Moral Economy Framework', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111, No. 1, pp. 121-132.

Caddy, I. (2012), 'Levels of executive remuneration: impact of the global financial crisis', Employment Relations Record, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 2-22.

Caddy, .I & Mortimer, D. (2012), 'Solving' unemployment : an analysis of two Australian policy initiatives', International Employment Relations Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp 55-73.

Caddy, I. & Mortimer, D. (2013), 'Unemployment and social disadvantage: a tale of five cities', International Employment Relations Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp 4-23.

Cappelli, P. & Keller J.R. (2013), 'Classifying Work in the New Economy', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 575-596.

Cappelli, P. & Neumark, D. (2004), 'External churning and internal flexibility: Evidence on the functional flexibility and core-periphery hypotheses', Industrial Relations, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 148-182.

Cardon, M.S. (2003), 'Contingent labor as an enabler of entrepreneurial growth', Human Resource Management, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 357-373.

Connelly, C.E. & Gallagher, D.G. (2004), 'Emerging trends in contingent work research', Journal of Management, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 959-983.

Cummins, E. (2014), 12 mind-blowing stats about contingent workers in the labour market, 17 April, viewed 2 June 2014 <<http://blog.nvoi.com.au/blog/12-mind-blowing-labour-market-trends>>.

D'Addio, A.C. Eriksson, T. & Frijters, P. (2007), 'An analysis of the determinants of job satisfaction when individuals' baseline satisfaction levels may differ', Applied Economics, Vol. 39, No. 19, pp. 2413-2423.

De Graaf-Zijl, M. (2012), 'Job Satisfaction and Contingent Employment', De Economist, June, Vol. 160, No. 2, pp. 197-218.

Houseman, S. (2001), 'Why employers use flexible staffing arrangements: Evidence from an establishment survey', Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 149-170.

Innis, M. (2014), 'Australia challenges unpaid internships', Sydney Morning Herald, 10 November, viewed 11 November 2014 <<http://www.smh.com.au/business/australia-challenges-unpaid-internships-20141110-11juo1.html>>.

Kalleberg, A.L. (2000), 'Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract work', Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 341-365.

Kalleberg, A.L., Reskin, B.F. & Hudson, K. (2000), 'Bad jobs in America: Standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States', American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 256-278.

Lepak, D.P. & Snell, S.A. (2002), 'Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations', Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 517-543.

Lepak, D.P., Takeuchi, R. & Snell, S.A. (2003), 'Employment flexibility and firm performance: Examining the interactive effects of employment mode, environmental dynamism and technological intensity', Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 681-703.

Matusik, S.F. & Hill, C.W.L. (1998), 'The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation, and competitive advantage', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 680-697.

OEDC, (2014), Better Life Index, viewed 2 June 2014, <<http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/>>,.

Perlin, R. (2011), Intern Nation: How to Earn Nothing and Learn Little in the Brave New Economy, London: Verso.

Schwartz, M. (2013), 'Opportunity Costs: The True Price of Internships', Dissent, Winter, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 41-45.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005), Contingent and alternative employment arrangements, February 2005, News Release No. USDL 05-1433, US Department of Labor Washington, DC.

Waterhouse, R. (2000), 'Australian Legends: Representations of the Bush, 1813-1913', Australian Historical Studies, Vol. 31, No. 115, pp. 201-221.

Way, S.A., Lepak, D.P., Fay, C.H. & Thacker, J.W. (2010), 'Contingent Workers' Impact on Standard Employee Withdrawal Behaviors: Does What You Use Them For Matter?', Human Resource Management, January/February, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 109-138.

Ian Caddy

University of Western Sydney