Sustaining transitions from welfare to work: the perceptions of employers and employment service providers.
Cortis, Natasha ; Bullen, Jane ; Hamilton, Myra 等
Introduction
This article is concerned with sustaining disadvantaged
jobseekers' transitions to paid work, in contexts shaped by
regional disadvantage and national priorities of 'activation'
or 'welfare to work'. As in other Western liberal states
(Esping-Andersen 1996: 16; Daguerre & Taylor Gooby 2004-29; OECD
2007), Australian welfare policies have, over more than two decades,
seen intensified requirements for citizens receiving income support
payments to seek and take up paid work. However, rather than achieving
sustained transitions from welfare into work, many jobseekers maintain
only short periods of employment, or move repeatedly between joblessness
and positions with low skill requirements, low pay, few or fluctuating
hours and few pathways to better opportunities (Richardson &
Miller-Lewis 2002; Perkins et al. 2009; MINTRAC 2010; Wilkins et al.
2011; Independent Inquiry into Insecure Work in Australia 2012). In
2011, for example, just under half of jobseekers were in employment
three months after receiving assistance from Australia's employment
service system, Job Services Australia (JSA). However, more than half of
this group were employed on a casual, temporary or seasonal basis and
one-third were underemployed, in that they were seeking more hours
(DEEWR 2011: 7). Around one-third of those who did obtain work after
receiving assistance were no longer employed three months later, with
outcomes being considerably worse among jobseekers with multiple
barriers and complex needs, including Indigenous jobseekers and those
who were homeless (DEEWR 2012: 8, 14).
These trends, which have persisted despite a series of systemic
reforms intended to improve the capacity and effectiveness of employment
services, are problematic because employee turnover disrupts workflow
and raises recruitment and training costs (Phillips & Connell 2003)
and because it undermines national productivity and skill utilisation
and development. Poor job retention also has sub-optimal financial and
wellbeing outcomes for individuals, as cycling between joblessness and
poor quality work has been shown to adversely affect mental and physical
health (Butterworth et al. 2011a; Butterworth et al. 2011b). For single
mothers for example, the unpredictable nature of casual work can be a
particular source of insecurity and dissatisfaction (Bodsworth 2010;
Cook 2010; Cook & Noblet 2012). Indeed, precarious employment is
especially problematic for vulnerable people, because job loss can
precipitate events which compound disadvantage, including relationship
breakdown and loss of housing (Brotherhood of St Laurence 2009; Perkins
et al. 2009; OECD 2010; Australian Social Inclusion Board 2011).
This article explores issues of employment retention and practical
ways to sustain the movement of disadvantaged people from income support
into paid work. First, we examine the welfare and labour market policies
that shape the contexts in which income support recipients are expected
to transition into paid work, including the design of the employment
service system. The article then examines the range of strategies for
sustaining transitions from unemployment into work which have been
documented in previous studies, before adding findings from a structured
qualitative study with two sets of stakeholders: employment service
providers and managers in the organisations which employ the jobseekers
they support.
As we show, interviewees identified a range of structural as well
as individual, supply-side barriers to retention, reflecting many of the
themes identified in previous studies. However, the research also
highlights considerable yet previously under-emphasised scope to
intervene at the meso-, or organisational level. This adds depth to
understandings of how the actions, practices, interactions and joint
strategies of employers and employment service providers can help shape
employment dynamics, the quality of work and outcomes for disadvantaged
jobseekers. The article suggests alternatives to both the 'work
first' and 'individual support' models of employment
policy, instead emphasising the potential for employers and employment
services to intervene to improve the opportunities available to
disadvantaged people and their long-term employment outcomes.
Welfare to work and the employment service system
Moving people from income support into any form of paid work has
long been an aim of Australia's welfare policy, as it has in a
range of countries (OECD 2007). Both major political parties have
propounded the idea that obtaining any job will provide opportunities to
learn valuable skills and will build jobseekers' capacity to obtain
better quality work. The intention is that mandatory participation in
job search and employment preparation will reduce welfare costs and
foster individual wellbeing and social inclusion (Cook 2012). In line
with these goals, activity testing of unemployed people was introduced
in 1988 and job search requirements were progressively tightened through
the 1990s. (1) The tightening of activity testing was core to a series
of bipartisan efforts intended to break down what governments described
as expectations of 'unconditional' social protection, by
'activating' income support recipients to perform their
'reciprocal' or 'mutual' obligations and move from
'passive' welfare receipt toward 'self-reliance'
(Commonwealth of Australia 1994; Reference Group on Welfare Reform
2000).
In the last decade, requirements to seek and take up paid work have
been extended from unemployed people to include income support
recipients with disabilities and parenting responsibilities. Throughout
the late 1990s and early 2000s the Howard Coalition Government tightened
the conditionality of income support for unemployed people, sole and
low-income partnered parents and people with a disability, and these
reforms were maintained under Labor. In January 2013, Labor again
tightened eligibility criteria for sole parents, by ending
grandfathering arrangements for 60,000 families receiving Parenting
Payment (single). All sole parents receiving income support are now
moved onto Newstart Allowance when their youngest child turns eight, and
so face higher activity requirements and receive payments at a rate
which is well recognised as being too low to meet the basic costs of
living (DEEWR n.d.; Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment
and Workplace Relations 2012). One consequence of policies promoting
transitions to paid work is that the group remaining on income support
has become more disadvantaged, as it is increasingly comprised of those
jobseekers with lower levels of educational attainment and skills and
more complex needs, who face the most difficulty obtaining work (Bolton
et al. 2006; Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry
& Brotherhood of St Laurence 2009; OECD 2010; OECD 2013).
Under current arrangements, unemployed people and parents receiving
Newstart are required to take any job offered to them, even if it is
precarious or short-term. Often the types of positions available to
people transitioning from income support are limited and their quality
is variable, especially in disadvantaged regions (Murphy et al. 2011).
High rates of casualisation in the industries and occupations requiring
lower levels of skill mean many people transitioning from income support
enter jobs which are unstable and do not provide paid leave. In November
2012 for example, 64 per cent of positions in the accommodation and food
services industry were casual, compared to 23 per cent of positions
overall (ABS 2013). High proportions of positions were casual in
labouring and sales occupations (both 46 per cent) and in community and
personal service work (40 per cent) (ABS 2013).
To assist income support recipients prepare for and transition into
work, the Federal Government funds a network of over 100 private and
non-profit employment services, known as Job Services Australia. (2)
While unemployed people who are not assessed as having barriers to
employment (Stream 1 clients) are initially encouraged to find work
independently, those who are assessed as experiencing moderate (Stream
2) to more severe barriers to employment (Streams 3 and 4) are referred
to these government-funded employment services, which receive incentives
to provide more assistance to the most disadvantaged clients.
Job Services Australia has evolved through a series of reforms
aimed at improving their efficiency and effectiveness, especially in
supporting the most disadvantaged jobseekers. In 1998, the Job Network
system replaced the government-operated Commonwealth Employment Service,
with the remit of supporting clients' transitions to employment
through: sourcing and brokering job placements; matching individuals to
jobs, providing case management and coaching; administering compulsory
requirements to participate in job-preparation activities like training
or community service; and ensuring jobseekers accept any reasonable
offer of work. Job search and preparation and other requirements have
been underpinned by systems of breaches and penalties for
non-compliance, and these have attracted much criticism for their
punitive elements (Davidson 2010; Considine et al. 2011; Davidson &
Whiteford 2011).
In its first decade, the Job Network was criticised for its poor
performance in assisting the most disadvantaged unemployed people to
remain in work. Early on, a Productivity Commission inquiry confirmed
that the structure of incentive payments had encouraged service
providers to over-allocate resources to those jobseekers most likely to
obtain and retain jobs, while those least likely to gain employment
received less assistance, and tended to cycle between short-term jobs
and income support (Productivity Commission 2002; Perkins & Scutella
2008; Considine et al. 2011).
A subsequent government review identified problems of service
complexity, excessive administrative burden for providers and continued
lack of incentive to focus resources on those requiring the most
intensive support (Commonwealth of Australia 2008). In 2009 the Rudd
Labor Government responded with a set of reforms and renamed the system
'Job Services Australia' (JSA). These maintained the
system's basic structure and role in assisting individuals to
become 'job-ready' and move into paid employment, but altered
the system of performance ratings and payments to service providers to
focus on longer-term outcomes and the placement of the most
disadvantaged clients (DEEWR 2008: 9; OECD 2013).
The problem of employment retention
Although reforms have aimed to promote employment retention,
studies continue to find that jobseekers do not consistently receive
individualised attention from caseworkers, who are often underqualified
and provide a compliance-focused service (Bowman & Horn 2010; Murphy
et al. 2011: 125; Giuliani 2013). A substantial number of jobseekers
continue to alternate between periods of unemployment and low-skill,
low-paid, poor quality, precarious work, with inadequate opportunities
for ongoing workforce attachment or support for career progression
(Perkins et al. 2009; Sheen 2010; Wilkins et al. 2011; Independent
Inquiry into Insecure Work in Australia 2012). The Independent Inquiry
into Insecure Work (2012: 48), for example, detailed concerns that JSA
incentives continue to encourage employment services to cycle vulnerable
workers in and out of work, including through short-term, low-paid
employment obtained through labour hire agencies. (3)
Poor employment retention is evident in the data with which the
Federal Government monitors the performance of the employment service
system. Figures on the outcomes of JSA assistance indicate that in 2011
almost half (48.8 per cent) of jobseekers had found work within three
months of receiving assistance. However, more than half of this group
were employed on a casual, temporary or seasonal basis, and a little
over one-third (34.9 per cent) worked part-time hours and were seeking
additional hours (DEEWR 2011: 7). Government data on job placement
outcomes also capture whether a person placed in a job by Job Services
Australia remained in that job continuously for 13 weeks. This shows
that a little over two-thirds (69.5 per cent) of those who obtained a
job were still employed after 13 weeks (DEEWR 2011: 14), suggesting that
employment retention remains a challenge for a substantial minority.
Some social groups are among the least likely to achieve sustained
spells in employment, including younger employees, longer-term
unemployed people, those with lower levels of educational attainment,
men, people with ill health or disability, Indigenous jobseekers and
those who are homeless (DEEWR 2011, 2012; Fowkes 2011).
Explaining poor job retention
One reason for these retention outcomes is that income support
recipients transitioning to paid work tend to move into positions
considered 'entry-level' in that they require low levels of
skill or experience. These positions are generally of poor quality in
that they have weak industrial protections; attract low wages; involve
difficult or physically demanding work; lack consistent or minimum
hours; and do not combine well with parenting commitments (Victorian
Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry & Brotherhood of St
Laurence 2009; Sheen 2010). As discussed above, lower-skill positions
are more likely to be short-term or casual compared with others, and
newer employees are more likely to be dismissed than others. In
addition, those who have previously been unemployed or in low-paid
employment are more likely to experience 'churning' between
low-paid jobs and unemployment (OECD 2006; Perkins & Scutella 2008;
MINTRAC 2010; Wilkins et al. 2011: 121).
Recent research indicates that transitions to work can be
particularly precarious for women. In one recent study, mothers who were
working and had received Parenting Payment (single) were found to be
employed casually at twice the national rate for employed women, and
casual employment was negatively associated with mothers'
satisfaction with their job security, hours of work and overall job
satisfaction (Cook & Noblet 2012). While casual work can provide a
bridge to permanent employment, recent Australian research has found
this is the case for some men, but not, on the whole, for women
(Buddelmeyer & Wooden 2011).
Factors associated with social disadvantage have also been
identified as affecting job retention in the transition to work. Those
successful in finding work through employment service providers have
been observed to be distinguished by their good health, stable housing,
experience or qualifications and location in an area where suitable jobs
were available (Murphy et al. 2011: 114). Personal or family problems,
unstable housing and poor transport or community services such as
childcare can disrupt employment tenure. Discrimination against
disadvantaged people may be overt, and even where it is not, employers
may be uneasy about employing disadvantaged people (Fowkes 2011). Some
research has also suggested that those with precarious attachment to the
labour market may misunderstand employer expectations or have skills
that do not match industry needs (Hershey & Pavetti 1997; Sunley et
al. 2001; OECD 2006; Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and
Industry & Brotherhood of St Laurence 2009; Wilkins et al. 2011).
Strategies to support retention
A recurring theme in the literature is that job search and job
matching services are, on their own, unlikely to promote full and
sustained transitions to work. Some have argued that 'work
first' approaches to activation have overemphasised the personal
deficits of unemployed people and focused on disciplining
non-compliance, rather than integrating job search and basic preparation
with more supportive measures aimed at skill development and mobility
into better quality jobs (Peck & Theodore 2000; Sunley et al. 2001;
OECD 2006; Watson 2008; Perkins 2010). Provision of intensive individual
support has been recognised to offer better potential to promote
employment retention, as this approach involves more intensive
vocational and non-vocational supports to address broader disadvantage
including homelessness, substance abuse and mental health issues. It
also provides longer-term supports to obtain and remain in suitable
employment (Perkins 2010).
Research in the United States, for example, has suggested that
maintaining post-placement services or in-work supports over three to
five years can achieve promising results for disadvantaged jobseekers,
including through more intensive job coaching and mentoring, peer
support, career guidance and personal development (Hershey & Pavetti
1997; Kellard et al. 2002; Hendra et al. 2010). Other retention
strategies cited in the literature relate to improving individual
circumstances, including: improving access to transport and childcare
(Sunley et al. 2001; OECD 2006); upskilling or retraining in areas
relevant to local industry; and improving jobseekers' attitudes to
work (Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry &
Brotherhood of St Laurence 2009). Ensuring that employment service staff
who work with jobseekers have local and industry-specific knowledge, and
that they have the capacity to effectively engage employers and training
providers in locally-based partnerships, have also been cited as factors
that can contribute to better retention outcomes (OECD 2006; Hendra et
al. 2010; Hendra et al. 2011).
Strategies to improve job retention through improving the quality
of jobs have been under-emphasised in the literature. Indeed, improving
job quality is not a traditional area of intervention for employment
services. However, the sustainability of transitions to work depend on
the adequacy of rewards, appropriate induction and support,
opportunities for skill development and career progression and job
security (OECD 2002, 2006; Perkins & Scutella 2008; Watson 2008).
Perkins and colleagues (2009: 5) found that among 1,250 people who moved
off benefits and into work, the most important job attribute they were
seeking was job security, which was rated as important or very important
by 85 per cent of respondents. This suggests scope for employment
services to improve the sustainability of outcomes by addressing the
quality of positions available to jobseekers, particularly job security.
To explore the mix of factors affecting retention in disadvantaged
regions in Australia, and to build knowledge about ways to improve
employment outcomes, the remainder of the article presents results from
a structured qualitative study, which was conducted with employers and
employment service providers in three disadvantaged areas.
Methodology
Three sites were selected for the study on the basis that each was
serviced by the employment agency that commissioned the project, and
because each area had high levels of unemployment but different labour
market characteristics and dynamics. The New South Wales site, with the
pseudonym of 'Barnett', (4) is a satellite suburb on the
fringe of a city dominated for decades by heavy industries, but which,
at the time of the study, was facing decline. The site in South
Australia, 'Charnham', is an industrial area on the city
periphery in reasonable commuting distance to employment centres in
Adelaide. The site in Queensland, 'Palm Heads', is a small
coastal town dominated by seasonal tourism and associated retail and
hospitality industries.
The first round of interviews was conducted with two staff working
in an employment service provider in each of the three sites. Of the six
interviewees, three were female. Each had been nominated as a potential
research participant by service managers on the basis of their strong
overview of placement practices and retention outcomes in their
organisation. Semi-structured, telephone-based interviews with these key
informants provided opportunities for the researchers to obtain an
understanding of the context of local labour markets they served,
including: the nature of the relationships and interactions between the
employment service provider and local employers; the characteristics of
the jobseeker population in the area; and their perceptions of
employment retention outcomes in their area and the factors that shape
them.
These informants also helped recruit local employers for the study,
by providing researchers with lists of organisations that had employed
jobseekers from their caseload in the last 12 months. This included
employers who had used 'assisted' models of employment
placement (whereby employment services do not directly source the job
but help employees obtain it), as well as employers whose placements
were 'brokered' through more intensive partnership with
employment services.
Researchers approached each employing organisation to invite the
senior staff member responsible for human resources to participate in a
short telephone interview. The 29 employers who chose to participate
were asked open-ended questions about their organisation, the skills
they required, the positions they used jobseekers from employment
services to fill, and how they worked with employment services.
Employers were asked why they thought employees stayed in or exited
employment at 13 and 26 weeks post-placement, as these are the two
points at which the government assesses outcomes under the JSA system.
Discussions covered the characteristics of jobseekers and the positions
they entered. In addition, employers suggested ways their organisation,
and employment services, could help improve retention. Interviews with
employers were approximately 20 minutes in duration. Interviews with
both employers and employment service providers were audio-recorded and
transcribed. Transcripts were analysed to identify themes emerging
across the three sites. Methods were approved by the University of New
South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee.
Research participants
Of the 35 interviewees in total, six were employment service
provider staff and 29 were employers who had accepted jobseekers in the
last twelve months. In Barnett, there were eleven employers, five of
whom were female. Nine employers participated in Charnham and in Palm
Heads, and in both of these sites, five of the nine participants were
female. Within employing organisations, interviewees held positions with
management or oversight of human resource issues, with job titles
including General Managers, Directors and Deputy Directors, Human
Resource Managers or Coordinators and Team Leaders. Organisations ranged
from small, local businesses to local outlets or operations managed by
larger, national or international companies. In some of the larger
organisations, interviewees had regional or State-wide responsibilities
for human resources. In small organisations, human resource issues
tended to be managed locally, in some cases by a manager or
owner-manager responsible for all aspects of the business. Table 1 shows
the type of business of the employers interviewed in each site.
The employers who participated are among the small proportion of
businesses that use employment services to recruit staff. According to
DEEWR (2012: 16), around seven per cent of Australian businesses used
JSA services in the last 12 months. As interviewees self-selected into
the study, the sample may more strongly represent employers with
particular interest in the topic, such as those working more closely
with employment services or employing large numbers of jobseekers; those
with strongly positive or negative experiences of employment services;
or those for whom retention was a high priority. In addition, the
interviews with employment service providers were from one multi-site
not-for-profit organisation only, and it is possible that staff from
other employment service providers, or in other locations, may have
different experiences and views. Finally, jobseekers' perspectives
were not captured in the study, and we recognise that they are likely to
view their employment barriers, and the support received, quite
differently to employers and service providers. Future research with
jobseekers and those who moved successfully from welfare to work would
provide a welcome complement to this study.
Findings
Interviewees identified a range of factors perceived to affect
retention. Some of these were structural, such as local economic
conditions and the quality of available jobs, while others related to
individual preparedness. In terms of the strategies to promote
retention, the perspectives offered highlight ways employers' and
service providers' day-to-day practices can make a difference and
how they might better work together to assist disadvantaged jobseekers
obtain, and remain in, paid work. Interviewees from the employment
services and the employer representatives both identified scope for
employers to better support new employees and more effectively manage
their casual workforce to promote retention. Both groups also saw scope
for employment service providers to follow up clients more consistently
and provide more intensive post-placement support. Overall, the findings
show considerable scope for more collaborative initiatives to promote
retention.
Barriers to retention
Interviews with employers and employment service providers across
the three areas confirmed that despite strong national employment
growth, economic conditions in each of the regions were not conducive to
retention outcomes for disadvantaged jobseekers. Long-term processes of
industrial decline culminated in casualisation or seasonal availability
of jobs. These processes were seen to undermine the quality of work
available and present major structural barriers to retention.
Fluctuating economic conditions in disadvantaged regions
In Palm Heads, for example, employment service staff explained that
despite opportunities in the town's small industrial area and in
surrounding towns, employment was constrained by the seasonal nature of
the tourism, retail and hospitality sectors, and the tendency for
positions in these industries to be short-term and casual, often with
fluctuating hours. In Barnett, interviewees observed that long-term and
intergenerational unemployment in the area had been exacerbated by the
contraction of local mining, manufacturing and transport industries.
Across the three regions, employers perceived fluctuating business
conditions, including the loss of contracts, to be key reasons for poor
retention. As one employer explained:
... it's not unusual for our company to experience a loss in
personnel as a direct result of losing a contract, or a contractor going
to tender and being taken up by another supplier. But, again, because of
the nature of the industry, it's something that is sort of just
accepted. (Palm Heads, Employer 4)
In this environment, employers would often need to lay people off
or reduce hours with little notice; this was accepted to be largely
beyond the control of employers and employment services. Interviewees
noted that fluctuating hours and changing shift times created challenges
for employees with family responsibilities and made it difficult
financially for some people to remain in employment. Despite recognising
that the opportunities they offered presented challenges, many employers
felt business conditions limited their scope to offer either more hours
or more steady employment. As one community care employer explained:
... [staff] do get used to 24 and 28 hours and then suddenly when
it drops back to only those 20 they really can't afford to stay
because they're not getting enough money. But we can't offer
them more because we've got no more work. (Barnett, Employer 5)
In this way, many employers felt constrained in the positions they
offered, feeling local conditions made it difficult to offer steady
opportunities. In Barnett, employment service providers observed that
large volumes of jobseekers found jobs via labour hire firms, but these
were overwhelmingly casual rather than ongoing positions and usually
short-term. Further, contracts shifted regularly, displacing employees.
Ongoing work could require repeated movement between positions, often
punctuated with further spells of joblessness. As we discuss later in
the paper, some employers sought to minimise the impact of fluctuations
on staff by reorganising the work, and we suggest there may be further
scope for employment services to explore this.
The poor quality of jobs on offer
Linked to the poor economic conditions in each site, interviewees
from employment services reported that jobs on offer were poor quality
in that many were low paid and offered little opportunity to advance,
presenting a major barrier to retention. Several employers were
forthright in stating that pay was low in the jobs which employees from
employment services tended to enter, and that it would be difficult for
employees to access opportunities to improve their pay. This was cited
with respect to work obtained through labour hire agencies and in aged
care organisations in Charnham and Barnett, and in the hotel cleaning
jobs on offer in Palm Heads, where employers found the piece rates paid
could result in below-award hourly rates.
Many of the positions that jobseekers were offered were also poor
quality in that they required workers to perform tasks or work in
environments considered unpleasant. One employer described positions in
telemarketing as 'incredibly boring' and 'incredibly
repetitive' (Charnham, Employer 4). Another explained poor
retention with reference to the physical conditions of the work:
... the job itself does not enjoy very good working conditions.
People are out in all sorts of weather ... some of these guys are out
there for 12 hours at a time. They're working on roads. It
isn't a job that suits everyone. Our attrition rate is so high
because a lot of people try it and say, 'No, this is not for
me'. (Palm Heads, Employer 4)
Indeed, many of the jobs on offer were perceived by employers and
employment service staff to be emotionally and/or physically demanding,
and new recruits frequently found they were not well suited to the work,
or were poorly prepared. An employer in Barnett explained that as a
growing industry, aged care offered employment prospects in an area
where opportunities in heavy industry were declining. However,
reflecting widespread cultural ambivalence to both the bodily and
emotional dimensions of elder care (Twigg 2000), the employer depicted
the work as dirty, difficult and even denigrating, making it challenging
to attract and retain jobseekers:
When you really look at it, it's old naked bodies that
you're cleaning and these people are incontinent of urine and
faeces; it's not a pleasant job ... We're dealing with a lot
of behaviours every day, demanding people and very guilty family and
relatives. So emotionally it is a very tough job. (Barnett, Employer 3)
In summary, the positions jobseekers entered were observed to be
poorly paid and poor quality yet demanding, contributing to poor
retention outcomes. However, as discussed below, several interviewees
identified scope to improve retention by improving employees'
knowledge of the challenging aspects of jobs prior to their
commencement.
Employee preparedness for the jobs available
Interviewees highlighted the importance of jobseekers having
adequate knowledge of, and preparation for, the realities of the work
available. Several employers said a key reason for a newly placed
employee leaving their role was that they had inadequate prior knowledge
about what would be involved in the work. These employers felt
jobseekers received insufficient information about the work from
employment services. As a result, their expectations matched poorly with
the reality of work in the initial days and weeks. A good understanding
of what roles would entail, or, in the words of one employer 'being
aware of what they're getting into' (Palm Heads, Employer 9),
was a factor many employers believed would improve retention.
Many employers also noted that new recruits frequently lacked
understanding of the importance of consistently getting to work on time,
ringing in when they were unable to attend, or following basic policies
and procedures such as signing in or reporting accidents. In some cases,
employers perceived this was due to difficulties in communicating, for
example:
A lot of people leave our company, and especially from the Job
Network members, because they're not very open ... like if they
wanted a night off, instead of asking for a night off they would just
not turn up for work and then not come back ... I'm just not sure
if they knew how to approach us to ask for something. (Bartlett,
Employer 2)
Other employers also explained poor retention in terms of a lack of
understanding or communication skills on the part of employees. For many
employers, poor punctuality or attendance signified larger problems
related to employees' skills, work ethic and performance, being
perceived to signal disinterest and to disrupt operations, which could
lead to termination. This issue also arose in the interviews with
employment service staff, who reported that their clients were sometimes
dismissed from work because employers judged, perhaps unfairly, that
they did not fit into the work culture or adhere to appropriate
workplace protocols. As discussed below, employee preparation is a key
area in which employers and employment service providers felt they could
better work together.
Strategies to improve retention
Depressed local economies, the poor quality of jobs on offer and
poor preparation of jobseekers were seen to present barriers to
employment retention by employers and employment service providers.
However, interviewees highlighted some scope to intervene, reflecting
recognition that employment continuity benefits business by minimising
recruitment and training costs; improving productivity, workflow and
service quality; and building employee commitment and wellbeing
(Phillips & Connell 2003). Interviewees' perspectives highlight
ways to improve retention and suggest scope for independent and joint
initiatives that employers and employment services can develop locally
to assist disadvantaged people to remain in paid work.
Employer strategies
Two key themes were identified with respect to employers' role
in retaining jobseekers: post-placement support for new employees and
the need for specific efforts to retain casual employees.
Support for new employees
A theme that arose repeatedly among employers was the importance of
employers having supports in place for new employees. In many cases,
employers pointed to orientation and 'buddy' arrangements as
important for supporting new recruits to settle into the workplace.
Clarity about the expectations of work cultures and protocols around
attendance and absences were seen as particularly important. Some
employers also explained how they sought to retain newly placed
employees by cultivating a positive work environment, and by fostering
support for social and career development among colleagues and between
supervisors and staff. One employer described their strategy:
We make it a priority to have a regular catch up like our
performance reviews and those times when we sit down with the employee
and say 'Okay, where do you want to go? What skills do you need,
etc and how can we support you?' (Barnett, Employer 10)
It is not clear, however, whether employees, especially those from
disadvantaged backgrounds, would perceive performance reviews or other
employer-initiated meetings as equally supportive, underlining the
importance of future research with employees and jobseekers themselves.
Some employers also considered it advantageous to deliberately
foster a sense of pride, competence and attainment among employees, to
ensure that people knew what level of performance was expected of them
and to ensure they understood whether they were meeting these goals.
Some referred to the importance of codes of conduct around bullying and
harassment and procedures to quickly and equitably deal with
inappropriate behaviour.
Finally, some employers described how being responsive to the needs
of staff, for example, by organising shift times that enabled parents to
pick children up from school, or offering flexibility in rostering, had
resulted in positive retention outcomes, especially for employees with
caring responsibilities. However, as other research points out, where
access to flexibility depends on localised, informal relationships and
managers' understanding, arrangements can be supportive but also
idiosyncratic, inconsistent and unpredictable, and so may not sustain
employment for all employees (Dean 2007; Millar & Ridge 2009).
Retaining casual employees
Employers also identified casualisation as a major barrier to
employment retention. At a minimum, those who were concerned sought to
ensure new recruits clearly understood the way their hours, and
consequently pay, would fluctuate. Some went further, seeking to more
actively moderate this insecurity by ensuring, where possible, that
casual staff had regular shifts or a regular number of hours. In the
case of one employer (Charnham, Employer 2), the organisation's
core work was seasonal but managers re-organised work roles so employees
could maintain year-round employment by, for example, training drivers
to perform sales in the off-peak season. This helped to build
employees' skills and organisational knowledge and retain them
despite seasonal fluctuations.
In another example, a large national retailer had focused on
improving retention by reducing the use of casual contracts, an agenda
that was consistent with their service quality goals. The interviewee
explained:
We've sort of tried to ... invert the ratio of permanency to
casual. Previously you could have stores with as many as 30-40 per cent
of their team as permanent part-time or full-time and 60-70 per cent as
casual and that stores are now measured on and are now aiming to
completely invert that ratio ... It is a
retention strategy and it's also about making sure that
we've got the best trained people with the best skills and
experience working at the times when our stores are busiest. (Barnett,
Employer 8)
This interviewee explained trying to change the 'churn and
burn' culture that had previously characterised the employment of
casual staff and which had undermined retention to the detriment of the
organisation. Staff had been made part-time or full-time on a permanent
basis and casuals were routinely offered a minimum threshold of hours
before any new staff could be recruited.
Employment service providers' strategies
As well as highlighting what they as employers could do, such as
reorganise their work to reduce casualisation or adjust to seasonal
conditions, employers also highlighted ways employment services could
better promote employment retention. While practical assistance such as
providing training, licensing and assistance with uniforms or petrol
vouchers for the initial work period were considered important in
helping jobseekers transition to work, some employers felt that
employment services could do more to improve jobseekers'
understanding of the nature of the industry and the work involved.
Employers reported that post-placement support from employment
service providers was important as it would allow early and independent
identification of any emerging issues. This was perceived to help retain
staff, although it was not something that employers had consistently
experienced, or were even aware employment services could offers. Some
employers provided examples in which they believed that exceptional
post-placement support had aided retention. As one employer explained:
They don't just place the person and then leave them to it.
They're constantly in touch and if we ever had any problems
with him, they'd come out and speak to him and they offered to pay
for the forklift and First Aid, which is good for a small business.
(Charnham, Employer 6)
Joint initiatives
As well as indicating scope for employers and employment service
providers to improve how they sought to sustain employment outcomes, the
interviews highlighted likely benefits from more co-ordinated and
collaborative intervention. Several employers had sought to improve
retention outcomes by improving their relationship with employment
service providers to ensure candidates were better matched to available
positions. One employer reported having actively sought to improve this
relationship, with positive results:
We've tried to open up those lines of communication [with an
employment service provider]; we've actually had a lot more
face-to-face meetings, we've taken in the job descriptions that we
require of the candidates that we're looking for and actually
discussed with them what we're looking for and why. (Barnett,
Employer 4)
Another employer (Barnett, Employer 1) described using a staged
process that involved staff and jobseekers from employment services
touring their facilities, while another held information days for
prospective employees (Barnett, Employer 3). This provided both the
employment service providers and the jobseekers with a good
understanding of the types of jobs on offer, knowledge of the site and
the opportunity to observe the work in action and to meet staff and hear
their testimonials. These initiatives were perceived to provide
potential employees with a stronger sense about whether they would like
to work for the organisation so that those who did obtain jobs would be
more likely to stay.
As indicated above, some employers identified the importance of
employment services following up jobseekers once they commenced
employment. These employers saw benefits in intervening early and in
partnership with employment services to address the issues that could
precipitate job loss. One employer explained, for example, how the
follow-up process had worked well:
When we were having some punctuality issues with one of the
applicants, we turned around and had meetings, they had meetings with
her, we had meetings altogether to discuss her issues and try and figure
out a better way for her to be able to turn up for work when she was
meant to. (Charnham, Employer 7)
However, while these models of working together were extremely
successful for some employers, other interviewees were unaware of the
possibilities, suggesting scope to develop consistent employer knowledge
of, and access to, opportunities to work more closely with employment
services to promote retention and other mutual goals. This could
involve, for example, working more intensively with disadvantaged
workers post-placement and expanding funding for post-placement support
to jobseekers assessed as having lower levels of disadvantage.
Conclusion
This article provides new evidence of the factors that employment
service providers and employers think affect the retention of the
jobseekers they assist, or employ, in disadvantaged regions. In doing
so, the article recognises poor retention outcomes to be inherent risks
of 'activation' or 'welfare to work' policies,
especially in a deregulated labour market environment and in
disadvantaged areas, where many opportunities available to disadvantaged
people are of poor quality.
Although the Job Services Australia system introduced in 2009
sought to renew the emphasis on longer-term investment in skill
development and promote employment retention and advancement (DEEWR
2008), our findings suggest that significant barriers remain. Based on
our informants' accounts, employment of jobseekers in short-term,
casual and poor quality jobs appears endemic, undermining longer-term
employment outcomes. Many employers felt constrained by poor local
labour market conditions and felt they had little scope to improve the
quality of positions they could offer, because the flexibility of casual
positions were central to their business model (as, for example, in
labour hire agencies); or because challenging or unpleasant tasks were
simply part of the job (as in personal care work). The few employers who
did report having adjusted the structure of their employment practices
to improve conditions for employees and promote retention (for example,
by improving the hours and contracts on offer), were more likely to be
larger companies, perhaps because these had greater capacity to
'cushion' the potential costs of these changes.
Employers' perceptions that they had limited ability to improve the
quality of work underlines the importance of strengthening the national
employment safety net and of developing creative local initiatives to
support industries or organisations that offer higher quality
entry-level opportunities, especially in disadvantaged regions.
Overall, we recognise that there are fundamental challenges not
only in adapting the income support and employment service systems to
the realities of social disadvantage and low paid labour markets, but
also in adapting labour markets and jobs to the needs of disadvantaged
people (Bodsworth 2010; Senate Standing Committee on Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations 2012). By highlighting how the
characteristics of entry-level jobs limit the outcomes that the
employment service system can realistically produce, our findings
suggest a need to enable innovative partnerships between providers and
employers to improve the quality of work; and a need for funding
arrangements that enable employment services to offer more comprehensive
post-placement support, including to smooth any transitions between
short-term jobs.
In doing so, we suggest expanding the remit of employment services
to enable them to catalyse action to improve the quality of lower-skill
jobs. While some larger employment services employ staff to identify
unadvertised local vacancies, or to persuade employers to create
suitable vacancies, this function could be more routinely resourced, and
resourced with incentives to develop better quality, ongoing work. In
addition, employment services' outreach functions could better
address employers' reticence to employ disadvantaged jobseekers and
counter the negative stereotyping of jobseekers.
These issues can be considered as the Australian Government seeks
to develop the employment service system and improves the structure of
the support it provides. It is well recognised that more can be done to
ensure employment service providers and employers work in partnership
(see, for example, DEEWR 2012). At present however, employers have low
levels of awareness of the assistance offered by publicly-funded
employment services, contributing to their low utilisation.
In exploring ways to sustain transitions from welfare to work, the
article has built on and extended previous research about retention
barriers and outcomes, adding the perspectives of the local agents
working at the meso- or organisational level, to facilitate transitions
from income support to paid work. The insight provided into the everyday
views and practices of these agents indicates considerable scope to
develop ways they might collectively promote employment retention, with
mutual benefits. Further research with jobseekers themselves would
greatly enrich understandings of the roles and practices of employers
and employment service providers and how they can better work together
to meet their needs.
Acknowledgement
The article has drawn on data collected for the project
Understanding the Barriers to 13 and 26 Week Employment Outcomes, which
was commissioned by Campbell Page, an employment service provider. The
authors would like to acknowledge the other team members on the project,
Professor Peter Whiteford and Emeritus Professor Bettina Cass. The
project report is unpublished.
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2013) Forms of Employment
Australia, Cat. No. 6359.0, Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Social Inclusion Board (2011) Breaking Cycles of
Disadvantage, Canberra, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
http://www. socialinclusion.gov.au/sites/www.socialinclusion.gov.a
u/files/publications/ pdf/breaking-cycles-of-disadvantage.pdf.
Bodsworth, E. (2010) Making work pay and making income support
work, Melbourne, Brotherhood of St Laurence.
Bolton, D., Landells, T. & Esposito, A. (2006) 'Towards
sustainable re-employment for low-skilled labour: new paradigms and
policy options', paper presented at Road to Where? Politics and
Practice of Welfare to Work Conference, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, 17-18 July.
Bowman, D. & Horn, M. (2010) 'The Australian experience of
employment services: what have we learnt?' In D. Ben-Galim & A.
Sachrajda (eds) Now It's Personal: Learning from Welfare-to-work
Approaches Around the World, London, Institute for Public Policy
Research.
Brotherhood of St Laurence (2009) Policy recommendations to the
Australian Government for an effective response to the economic
downturn, Melbourne, Brotherhood of St Laurence.
Buddelmeyer, H. & Wooden, M. (2011) 'Transitions out of
casual employment: the Australian experience', Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50 (1), 109-130.
Butterworth, P., Leach, L., Rodgers, B., Broom, D., Olesen, S.
& L. Strazdins (2011a) 'Psychosocial job adversity and health
in Australia: analysis of data from the HILDA Survey', Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 35 (6), 564-71.
Butterworth, P., Leach, L., Rodgers, B., Strazdins, L., Oleson, S.,
Rodgers, B. & D. Broom (2011b) 'The psychosocial quality of
work determines whether employment has benefits for mental health:
results from a longitudinal national household panel survey',
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 68 (11), 806-812.
Cass, B. (1988) Income support for the unemployed in Australia:
Towards a more active system, Social Security Review Issues Paper 4,
Canberra, Department of Social Security.
Coe, N., Johns, J. & Ward, K. (2009) 'Agents of
casualization? The temporary staffing industry and labour market
restructuring in Australia', Journal of Economic Geography, 9 (1),
55-84.
Commonwealth of Australia (1994) Working Nation: The White Paper on
Employment and Growth, Canberra, Australian Government Printing Service.
--(2008) The future of employment services in Australia, Discussion
Paper Fact Sheet, http://www.deewr.gov.au/Department/Publications/Documents/ DiscussionPaperfactsheet.pdf.
Considine, M., Lewis, J. & O'Sullivan, S. (2011)
'Quasi-markets and service delivery flexibility following a decade
of employment assistance reform in Australia', Journal of Social
Policy, 40 (4), 811-833.
Cook, K. (2012) 'Single parents' subjective wellbeing
over the welfare to work transition', Social Policy & Society,
11 (2), 143-155.
Cook, K. & Noblet, A. (2012) 'Job satisfaction and
'welfare-to-work': is any job a good job for Australian single
mothers?', Australian Journal of Social Issues, 47 (2), 203-219.
Daguerre, A. & Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) 'Neglecting Europe:
explaining the predominance of American ideas in New Labour's
welfare policies since 1997', Journal of European Social Policy, 14
(1), 25-39.
Davidson, P. (2010) 'Did 'Work First' work? The role
of employment assistance programs in reducing long-term unemployment in
Australia (1990-2008)', Australian Bulletin of Labour, 37 (1),
51-96.
Davidson, P. & Whiteford, P. (2011) Activation Policies in
Australia: background report for OECD review of activation policies in
Australia, Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Dean, H. (2007) 'Tipping the balance: the problematic nature
of work-life balance in a low-income neighbourhood', Journal of
Social Policy, 36 (4), 519-38.
DEEWR (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations)
(2008) The Future of Employment Services in Australia: A Discussion
Paper, Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations,
http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/002400C9-E034-4C88-90D1-A
BB7F3C590EF/0/DiscussionPaperWEB.pdf
--(2011) Labour Market Assistance Outcomes, Canberra, DEEWR.
--(2012) Employment Services--building on success: Issues Paper,
http://foi.deewr.gov.au/node/30517.
--(n.d.) Job Services Australia and Parenting Payment for parents
and carers, http://deewr.gov.au/job-services-australia-and-parenting-payment-parents-an d-carers
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996) 'After the Golden Age? Welfare
state dilemmas in a global economy'. In G. Esping-Andersen (ed.)
Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies,
London, Sage.
Fowkes, L. (2011) Rethinking Australia's employment services,
Perspectives, Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney.
Giuliani, G. (2013) 'Frontline workers in Australian
employment services: why qualifications and people skills matter',
paper presented at Employment Services for the Future Conference,
University of Melbourne, 7 February.
Hendra, R., Dillman, K., Hamilton, G., Lundquist, E., Martinson, K.
& Wavelet, M. (2010) How effective are different approaches aiming
to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for
twelve models, New York, MDRC.
Hendra, R., Riccio, J., Dorsett, R., Greenberg, D., Knight, G.,
Phillips, J., Robins, P., Vegeris, S. & Walter, J. (2011) Breaking
the low-pay, no-pay cycle: final evidence from the UK Employment
Retention and Advancement (ERA) demonstration, Sheffield, Department for
Work and Pensions.
Hershey, A. & Pavetti, A. (1997) 'Turning job finders into
job keepers', The Future of Children, 7 (1), 74-86.
Independent Inquiry into Insecure Work in Australia (2012) Lives on
hold: unlocking the potential of Australia's workforce, Report of
the Independent Inquiry into Insecure Work in Australia, Australian
Council of Trade Unions.
Kellard, K., Adelman, L., Cebulla, A. & Heaver, C. (2002) From
jobseekers to job keepers: job retention, advancement and the role of
in-work support programmes, Department of Work and Pensions,
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrep170.pdf
Laplagne, P., Glover, M. & Fry, T. (2005) The Growth of Labour
Hire Employment in Australia, Staff Working Paper, Melbourne,
Productivity Commission.
Millar, J. & Ridge, T. (2009) 'Relationships of care:
working lone mothers, their children and employment sustainability,
Journal of Social Policy, 38 (1), 103-121.
MINTRAC (National Meat Industry Training Advisory Council Ltd)
(2010) Literature review on labour turnover and retention strategies,
National Meat Industry Training Advisory Council Ltd
http://www.mintrac.com.au/ files/newsletter/research
%20turnover%20and%20retention%20.pdf
Murphy, J., Murray, S., Chalmers, J., Martin, S. & Marston, G.
(2011) Half a Citizen: Life on Welfare in Australia, Sydney, Allen &
Unwin.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2002)
Upgrading the skills of the low-qualified: a new local policy agenda,
Paris, OECD.
--(2006) Skills upgrading: new policy perspectives, local economic
and employment development, Paris, OECD.
--(2007) 'Activating the unemployed: what countries do',
OECD Employment Outlook, 20 (14), 207-242.
--(2010) OECD Economic Survey Australia, Paris, OECD.
--(2013) OECD Employment Outlook 2013, Paris, OECD.
Peck, J. & Theodore, N. (2000) "Work first': workfare
and the regulation of contingent labour markets', Cambridge Journal
of Economics, 24 (1), 119-138.
Perkins, D. (2010) 'Activation and social inclusion:
challenges and possibilities', Australian Journal of Social Issues,
45 (2), 267-287.
Perkins, D. & Scutella, R. (2008) 'Improving employment
retention and advancement of low-paid workers', Australian Journal
of Labour Economics, 11 (1), 1-6.
Perkins, D., Tyrrell, L. & Scutella, R. (2009) 'Is career
advancement important to disadvantaged jobseekers? Analysis of a large
survey of disadvantaged jobseekers', paper presented at the
Australian Social Policy Conference, Sydney, 8-10 July.
Phillips, J. & Connell, A. (2003) Managing Employee Retention:
A Strategic Accountability Approach, Burlington, Elsevier.
Productivity Commission (2002) Independent Review of the Job
Network, Inquiry Report No. 21, Canberra, AusInfo.
Reference Group on Welfare Reform (2000) Participation Support for
a More Equitable Society--Final Report, Canberra, Department of Family
and Community Services.
Richardson, S., & Miller-Lewis, L. (2002) Low wage jobs and
pathways to better outcomes, Working Paper 02/29, Wellington, New
Zealand Treasury.
Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations (2012) The Adequacy of the Allowance Payment System for
Johseekers and Others, the Appropriateness of the Allowance Payment
System as a Support into Work and the Impact of the Changing Nature of
the Labour Market, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
Sheen, V. (2010) 'Precarious employment, workfare and social
protection for disadvantaged women in Australia: international
implications'. In E. Eyebiyi, E Herrmann & V. Sheen (eds)
Global Crossroads in Social Welfare: Emergent Issues, Debates and
Innovations Across the Globe, Bremen, Europaischer Hochschulverlag.
Sunley, P., Martin, R. & Nativel, C. (2001) 'Mapping the
New Deal: the local disparities in the performance of
Welfare-to-Work', Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 26 (4), 484-512.
Twigg, J. (2000) 'Carework as a form of bodywork', Ageing
and Society, 20 (4), 389-411.
Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry &
Brotherhood of St Laurence (2009) Barriers to hiring disadvantaged or
vulnerable entry-level job seekers: Victorian employers' attitude
survey, Melbourne, Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce &
Brotherhood of St Laurence.
Watson, I. (2008) 'Low paid jobs and unemployment: churning in
the Australian labour market, 2001 to 2006', Australian Journal of
Labour Economics, 11 (1), 71-96.
Wilkins, R., Warren, D., Hahn, M. & Houng, B. (2011) Families,
incomes and jobs, Volume 6: a statistical report on Waves 1 to 8 of the
Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, Melbourne
Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Melbourne, The
University of Melbourne.
Endnotes
(1.) These changes built on the work test, which had been attached
to unemployment benefits since they were introduced in 1945, but which
had previously been applied with discretion, and in the context of
national commitment to full employment (Cass 1988: 145).
(2.) These are distinguished from other job placement or
recruitment agencies serving the mainstream population, which do not
receive government-funding under the JSA program.
(3.) Labour hire, or temporary staff agencies, receive commissions
from client organisations in return for supplying labour (employees,
contractors, trainees or apprentices) for a limited period. Risks of
recruiting and laying off staff are transferred either to the labour
hire agency or worker. Labour hire is often used to source additional
staff, to outsource administrative burdens of employment, and to
circumvent collective agreements, especially in the manufacturing,
wholesale, transport and finance industries (Laplagne et al. 2005; Coe
et al. 2009). Labour hire employment grew by over 15 per cent per year
through the 1990s (see Laplagne et al. 2005).
(4.) Site names have been replaced with pseudonyms, to ensure full
de-identification of the participants.
(5.) As previously indicated, the level of funding to employment
service providers, and the intensity of support they provide depends on
jobseekers' level of disadvantage. Employers of jobseekers with
higher levels of disadvantage (Stream 4) can expect more intensive
support. However, employers are not necessarily aware of the streams of
new recruits, and why they did or did not receive post-placement
support.
Table 1: Employers by site and business type
Employer Palm Heads (Qld) Charnham (SA) Barnett (NSW)
1 Maintenance Construction Aged Care
2 Tourism Warehousing Security
3 Security Food Aged Care
4 Maintenance Telemarketing and Labour hire
sales
5 Animal care Aged care Aged care
6 Food Manufacturing Community care
7 Hotel Aged care Disability care
8 Hotel Automotive Retail
9 Horticulture Freight Labour hire
10 -- -- Hotel
11 -- -- Labour hire
