We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you personalised advertising. To find out more, read our privacy policy and cookie policy

Skip to Content
University of Wollongong Australia. Logo. University of Wollongong Australia. Logo. University of Wollongong Australia. Logo.
  • Search
  • Give
  • Library
  • Current Students
  • Staff
  • UOW Global
    • Our global presence
    • UOW in Dubai
    • UOW in Hong Kong
    • UOW in Malaysia
  • Menu
  • Study at UOW

    • Courses
    • Apply
    • Scholarships & grants
    • Accommodation
    • High-school students
    • Non-school leavers
    • Postgraduate students
    • International students
    • Moving to Wollongong
    • Study abroad & exchange
    • Global sport programs
    • Campuses
    Study at UOW
  • Engage

    • Future student
    • Alumni
    • Visit UOW
    • Woolyungah Indigenous Centre
    • Volunteer
    • The Stand Magazine
    • Community Members
    • Grants and funding
    • Give to UOW
    • Visit the Library
    • Key contacts
    • Educators & school teachers
    Engage with us
  • About UOW

    • Welcome
    • Our people
    • Services
    • Contacts
    • What's on
    • Global presence
    • Media Centre
    • Faculties & schools
    • Our vision & strategy
    • Our Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Strategy
    • Our reputation & experience
    • Locations, campuses & partners
    See more about UOW
  • Research

    • Our research
    • Researcher support
    • Research impact
    • Partnership & collaboration
    • Graduate Research School
    • Commercial research
    • Global Challenges
    • Media, news & events
    • Find an expert
    • Our people
    See more about research
  • Industry

    • Generator Lab
    • Advantage SME
    • Success stories
    • Industry research engagement
    • Equipment & Labs
    • Funding opportunities
    • Intellectual property
    • Collaboration for business
    • Collaboration for researchers
    • Careers and employability
    See more about Industry
  • Alumni

    • Benefits
    • Outlook Magazine
    • Events & webinars
    • Volunteer
    • Awards
    • Honorary alumni
    • Testamurs & transcripts
    • Update your details
    • Your career journey
    • Contact us & FAQ
    See more about alumni
  • Quick links

    • Contact directory
    • Staff Intranet
    • Campus maps
    • Transport & parking
    • Key dates
    • Events
    • Password management
    • Jobs
    • Accommodation
    • Policy directory
  • Library
You are here More Pages
  • Home
  • About UOW
  • Media Centre
  • 2019
  • Cutting penalty rates was supposed to create jobs. It hasn't, and here's why not

Media Quick Links

  • Contact UOW Media
  • Visiting campus
  • Image library
  • UOW key facts
  • Find an expert
  • News Corp subscription
  • Sign up for the latest news from UOW Media

May 16, 2019


  • Story By
  • Martin O'Brien, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance
Share
Type
Opinion Pieces
Category
Business and Economy
Tags
EconomicsBusinessResearch

UOW in the News

Cutting penalty rates was supposed to create jobs. It hasn't, and here's why not

Using a variety of statistical analyses, the authors have found no evidence of more employment in hospitality and retail because of reduced penalty rates.


After three years of submissions, hearings and deliberations, Australia’s workplace relations umpire, the Fair Work Commission, decided in 2017 to decrease the penalty rates paid to retail and hospitality workers on the safety-net award for working on Sundays and public holidays.

For years employer groups had argued that high penalty rates (up to double standard pay) were an unaffordable anachronism in the modern economy, and the commission essentially agreed.

In particular, it concluded the evidence was that cutting penalty rates (by between a quarter and a half) would lead to more trading hours and services on offer on Sundays and public holidays, “and an increase in overall hours worked”.

In other words, reducing penalty rates would create more jobs.

Two years on, with cuts to public holiday penalty rates fully implemented and Sundays partially implemented (being introduced over three to four years) how many extra jobs have been created?

Our research suggests basically none.

What the data tells us

The publicly available data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics doesn’t really help determine the effect of the penalty rate cut. The following graph shows ABS employment date covering the retail and hospitality sectors since 2015.


 

CC BY

 


The key dates are when penalty rate cuts occurred, on July 1, 2017 (full reduction in the public holiday rate and part reduction of the Sunday rate) and July 1, 2018 (further reduction of the Sunday rate).

There is no obvious increase in employment after those two dates, but this doesn’t really tell us the full story. Because the ABS doesn’t collect employment data for Sundays and public holidays specifically. Also the group affected (those on modern award pay and conditions) comprise about a third of employees in these sectors, and they are buried in the stats alongside those on enterprise agreements and individual contracts, whose wages were unaffected by the commission’s decision.

In short, one needs to collect some custom data to do a proper study.

Which is what my colleague Ray Markey at Macquarie University and I did.

In late 2018 we commissioned a survey using a third-party data collection agency. We surveyed more than 1,800 employees and 200 owner-managers in retail and hospitality. We collected data on Sunday, public holiday and weekly employment patterns for modern award employees, as well as those covered by enterprise agreements and individual contracts.

Using a variety of statistical analyses, we were unable to establish any evidence of a relative increase in the prevalence of Sunday, public holiday or weekly employment for modern award employees or employers. Nor could we establish a decrease to the number of hours that owner-managers worked Sunday and public holidays, something else the Fair Work Commission also predicted.

In fact, some of the analysis suggested the Sunday and public holiday employment outcomes were worse for those affected by the penalty cuts compared to those on enterprise agreements and individual contracts.

Flawed evidence

So, why the dud result?

The inescapable conclusion is that the evidence presented to the commission was flawed.

What came from employer groups, trade unions, the Productivity Commission, and expert witnesses (including myself) was indirect and tangential at best, and biased at worst.

No reliable statistical evidence of the effect of penalty rates on employment was presented, either by employers or unions, because no such data had ever been collected.

Of the 151 academic papers the commission referred to in its decision, not one contained sound empirical analysis of the employment impact of penalty rates. It was instead mostly inferred from minimum wage cases.

The evidence in support of penalty rate cuts consisted of employer intentions surveys. One such survey, by an employer group, indicated more than half of its members would employ extra staff if they could cut penalty rates.

One high-profile professor of economics often consulted by employers calculated that reducing penalty rates by 1% would increase employment by 3%. This relied on sources including an unpublished conference paper from 1971 using Danish consumer data and a US study from 1966.

Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission decision was swayed by the Productivity Commission and blind faith in high-school economics – that if the price of labour goes down, the quantity of labour demanded will go up.

But by how much? Don’t ask the Productivity Commission, which admitted it was “difficult to quantify the precise effect”.

Increased minimum wage

At least two factors may have undone the Fair Work Commission’s prediction.

First, some of the savings employers might have made from the penalty rate cuts were nullified by increases in base minimum wage rates.

For example, a retail worker on the General Retail Modern Awardpaid A$50.55 an hour on a public holiday in 2016-17 would get only A$46.98 in 2017-18. But they would have gained 3.3% minimum wage increase. So a full-time employee would be earning A$793.60 a week compared with A$768.20 the previous year.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has argued it will take time to see a positive employment impact due to the gradual, phased reduction in Sunday rate cuts. However, the public holiday penalty-rate cut was implemented in full in 2017 and there has been no significant change to public holiday employment.

Yet low-wage growth across the economy

Second, despite relatively generous increases in minimum wages, there has been record low income growth across the economy, while costs associated with housing, energy and food have risen at a rapid rate.

The retail and hospitality sectors depend upon discretionary household spending. It is likely the expected employment stimulus has been affected by a lack of demand and spending in these sectors. Less spare cash after paying important bills means less spending on extra goodies like restaurant meals, holidays, recreational goods – all the things that retail and hospitality rely on.

It doesn’t matter how much you try and reduce business costs via penalty rate cuts, if people aren’t spending money then employers are not going to put extra people on for Sundays and public holidays.

In fact, decreasing the Sunday and public holiday pay for a decent chunk of the labour force may be adding to this lack of consumer demand and confidence.The Conversation

Martin O'Brien, Lecturer in Economics, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

UOW academics exercise academic freedom by providing expert commentary, opinion and analysis on a range of ongoing social issues and current affairs. This expert commentary reflects the views of those individual academics and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy positions of the University of Wollongong.

Media Contacts for this article

UOW Media Office

You may also be interested in

Brendan Lyon joins UOW as Professor of Practice
Leading financial experts to explore security of the banking sector at inaugural Gong Talks event
UOW expert commentary: Dr Paul Mazzola on RBA review
Services & Help
  • Current students
  • Library
  • Information technology
  • Accommodation
  • Security & safety
  • Pool, gym & retail
News, Media & Events
  • Media Centre
  • The Stand
  • Alumni Magazine
  • Research news
  • Events
  • Find an expert
Faculties
  • Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities
  • Business & Law
  • Engineering & Information Sciences
  • Science, Medicine & Health
Administration
  • Graduation
  • Environment
  • Policy directory
  • Learning and teaching
  • Financial Services
  • Access to information
  • Jobs
UOW Entities
  • Innovation Campus
  • UOW College Australia
  • UOW College Hong Kong
  • UOW in Dubai
  • UOW Global Enterprises
  • UOW Malaysia KDU
  • UOW Pulse
Connect with us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Conversation
  • Contact us
  • Feedback
  • Give to UOW

Northfields Ave Wollongong,  NSW 2522  Australia 
Phone: 1300 367 869 
International: +61 2 4221 3218 
Switchboard: +61 2 4221 3555

  • NUW Alliance: Smarter Solutions for NSW
  • University Global Partnership Network (UGPN)
  • Reconciliation Australia
  • AWEI LGBTQ inclusion awards logo

Aboriginal flag Torres Strait Islander flag

On the lands that we study, we walk, and we live, we acknowledge and respect the traditional custodians and cultural knowledge holders of these lands.

Copyright © 2023 University of Wollongong
CRICOS Provider No: 00102E | TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12062 | ABN: 61 060 567 686
Copyright & disclaimer | Privacy & cookie usage | Web Accessibility Statement

Close