This just in: Christmas lay-offs, talking war in the workplace, and protecting gig workers

Over the past week, HR news has focused on redundancies in the lead-up to Christmas, workplace risks arising from war in the Middle East, and the vulnerabilities of Aussie gig workers. Let’s get you up to speed.

Christmas redundancies

Nearly one-third of Australian companies plan on making redundancies before Christmas, while the proportion doubles to around 60 per cent in the public sector. The expected redundancy level of 31 per cent increased substantially from 17 per cent in September. The research, published by the Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI), was explored in a recent article by The Australian.

Interestingly, the study also found that recruitment intentions among HR professionals have increased from 61 per cent to 71 per cent over the past quarter, suggesting the expected redundancies might have less to do with reducing workforces and more to do with company restructuring.

Staff shortages continue to affect hiring practices as the share of employers facing staffing difficulties remained steady at 47 per cent, while staff turnover rates, too, have been unchanged at 14 per cent.

Perhaps signalling burnout and stress, employers are reporting inflated levels of sick and carers leave, with only 19 per cent enjoying a decrease in unscheduled absences.

“The days off work were driven in large part by COVID-19, home responsibilities and minor illnesses, with workers taking an average of six days off in FY2023,” wrote Helen Trinca for The Australian.

Among the most significant stress factors for employees, AHRI found, are cost-of-living pressures (51 per cent), work/life balance concerns (40 per cent), and excessive workloads (38 per cent).

Talking war

Also making the news this week, partner of workplace relations and safety at Lander & Rogers Amie Frydenberg penned an article on the responsibility of employers in minimising discrimination arising from the war in the Middle East.

“Many people in Australia are feeling unsafe, threatened, and victimised. Their security, which to now has been taken for granted, is under threat,” wrote Ms Frydenberg.

“The images and news reports from the conflict are causing significant emotional distress, impacting people’s mental and physical health. This emotional toll is filtering into our workplaces, and employers must be cognisant of the potential legal issues that may flow.

”The responsibilities of employers are twofold: firstly, they must prevent discriminatory conduct, and secondly, they must mitigate risks to employee health and safety.”

In relation to the first, employers could fall shy of anti-discrimination laws by voicing, or appearing to demonstrate, their support for one side of the conflict over another, or they could be held vicariously liable for discriminatory employee conduct. Similarly, failing to prevent or manage harassment or bullying of one group over another may amount to unlawful discrimination.

Turning to health and safety, employers are under an obligation to protect their employees at work. Workers might be particularly vulnerable to hazards arising from the conflict through, for example, increased risk of accidents arising from emotional distress or bullying/violent behaviour between employees.

Recently, HR Leader shared its thoughts on how business leaders can manage workplace issues arising from the conflict.

Protecting gig workers

“Gig workers are at the mercy of the market,” said University of Sydney Business School expert Dr Alex Veen. As gig work platforms strive to cut costs, suffer high rates of workplace injury, and gig workers struggle to challenge dismissals – better protections are needed.

It’s precisely these issues that the Closing Loopholes Bill strives to address. However, said Dr Veen, the proposed legislation fails on innovation.

“The government has opted to effectively mimic an enterprise bargaining system that hasn’t been delivering, and which has contributed to a culture of adversarialism. In particular, the expanded role [of] the Industrial Relations Commission should be questioned.”

Instead of relying on decisions of the commission, Dr Veen said, workers and their platforms should strive for industry self-regulation.

“Rather than looking to the state for solutions, platforms and workers can come up with the solutions together, which will help to foster more collaborative and productive workplace relations,” he said.

Dr Veen suggested that the proposed powers of the commission would undermine collective bargaining processes and promote a dispute-centric relationship.

“The government has an opportunity to learn from a more successful approach and empower the industry to proactively develop its own solutions rather than rely on the commission to set the agenda,” concluded Dr Veen.

To learn about the recent debate over the Closing Loopholes Bill, click here.