Work Choices: the low productivity road to an underclass

Cowling, Sally; LaJeunesse, Robert M.; Mitchell, William; Watts, Martin

doi:10.1002/j.1839-4655.2006.tb00008.x

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite their consequent vulnerability, *Corresponding author. Email: helen.forbes-mewett@buseco.monash.edu.au international student-workers have not been included in debates on vulnerable workers and this is true even of contributions that have explored the vulnerability of young workers (see, for example, Pocock and Masterman-Smith 2005;Cowling et al 2006;Fenwick 2006;Mathews 2006;Mitchell, Juniper, and Myers 2006;Stewart 2006;Burgess, Henderson, and Strachan 2007;Hodgkinson and Markey 2007;McDonald et al 2007). In this paper, we address the prevailing paucity of knowledge on international student-workers by drawing on interviews with 200 higher education students across nine Australian universities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

International student‐workers in Australia: a new vulnerable workforce

Nyland

Forbes‐Mewett

Marginson

et al. 2009

Journal of Education and Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the period immediately preceding the 2007 Australian election, much attention was accorded to the impact of the nation's labour laws on vulnerable employees. This debate centred on specific groups including women, youth, migrants and workers on individual employment contracts. International students, by contrast, were ignored in the debate. This omission reflects the fact that though three million students study outside their home country, this community has not previously made an appearance in the labour studies literature. In this paper, we address this omission by depicting the work experience of 200 international students studying in Australian higher education institutions. We argue that a much greater proportion of international students participate in the labour market than earlier research has indicated and that in many cases they are compelled to accept very poor conditions of employment. Furthermore, we suggest that as major sponsors of international student visas, universities should inform and protect students' labour rights and that given the dire situation of many they must become a recognised part of the vulnerable-worker debate. IntroductionOver 519,000 international students were enrolled onshore in Australian education institutions at the end of 2008, an increase of 20% over the previous year. These visitors tend to remain for one to four years and through this period have long had the right to be employed for 20 hours per week during semester and an unlimited number of hours at other times. In September 2007, these work-time stipulations were modified to permit international students to obtain up to 18 months work experience on completing their studies. The large and growing number of international students and the 2007 extension of the time they can remain and accept employment are of significance. This is not least because research by Forbes-Mewett et al. (in press) has revealed that many international students experience severe financial difficulties while studying in Australia with a significant proportion having a non-wage income less than half the Henderson Poverty Line. Despite their consequent vulnerability,

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

International student‐workers in Australia: a new vulnerable workforce

Nyland

Forbes‐Mewett

Marginson

et al. 2009

Journal of Education and Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The social wage in the form of unemployment replacement rates has also decreased since 1997 (OECD, 2011; see also Clayton & Pontusson, 1998). Combined with the de-emphasis on the traditional measure of providing unemployment benefits, Australia's social protection through wage protection was argued to have become a thing of the past (Cowling, LaJeunesse, Mitchell, & Watts, 2006). Clearly, the cornerstone of the Australian wage earners' welfare state was severely damaged.…”

Section: Wages Work and Policy Reversal In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Common paths, divergent patterns: The social protection by other means approach in Australia and Japan

Hwang

2015

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on a study of the welfare reform trajectories of two countries that are often identified in the literature as having institutional patterns of the ‘social protection by the other means’ approach. It is questioned in the article whether these two countries have undergone a converging reform trajectory against the increasing forces of economic liberalisation and whether their distinct ways of doing social policy have now come to an end. It argues that while both Australia and Japan have followed a similar neoliberal path in their social policy reform direction, the forms and patterns they have taken to follow have been distinct, largely aligned with the existing structure of social protection in each. Distinctive strategies of welfare adopted by each country have led to a divergent pattern in their way of doing social policy.

show abstract

“…At the time of writing, the AFPC was headed by Professor Ian Harper, an economist who has served on the Academic Advisory Council of the neo‐liberal think tank, the Centre for Independent Studies. The Howard government argued that the Australian minimum wage was far too high at AU$484 per week (58.8 per cent of full‐time median earnings compared with 43.25 per cent in the UK and 32.25 per cent in the USA), and asked the AFPC to focus particularly on labour costs including ‘employment and competitiveness across the economy and the capacity of the unemployed and the low paid to remain in employment’ (Cowling et al, 2006: 226). Conversely, the Howard government made no reference to preserving living standards or promoting fairness.…”

Section: The Neo‐liberal Attack On the Australian Welfare Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Retrenching or renovating the Australian welfare state: the paradox of the Howard government's neo‐liberalism

Mendes

2008

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most conventional studies of the former Australian Liberal–National Coalition government refer to its neo‐liberal ideological agenda: its concern to reduce government interference with free market outcomes by restricting access to social security payments. That analysis suggests a substantial retrenchment of the Australian welfare state based on redirecting responsibility for the disadvantaged from government to corporations, private individuals and families. Yet there is increasing evidence from reliable sources that the government has not reduced social expenditure, and that increasing resources have been directed, particularly via the family payments system, towards some disadvantaged groups such as low‐income families and the aged. Utilising the theory of the US political scientist Paul Pierson, this article explores the joint paradox of Australian neo‐liberalism: the punitive treatment of some disadvantaged groups such as the disabled and lone parents versus the generosity towards other groups and, more generally, the growth rather than decline in social expenditure. The author asks what this paradox tells us about the likely future of the welfare state in Australia and elsewhere.

show abstract

Work Choices: the low productivity road to an underclass

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

International student‐workers in Australia: a new vulnerable workforce

International student‐workers in Australia: a new vulnerable workforce

Common paths, divergent patterns: The social protection by other means approach in Australia and Japan

Retrenching or renovating the Australian welfare state: the paradox of the Howard government's neo‐liberalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About