The Australian Government’s business-friendly employment response to COVID-19: A critical discourse analysis

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has created economic crises and considerable loss of employment throughout the world. In the Australian context, social distancing restrictions and business closures contributed to a dramatic increase in unemployment, with 780,000 people losing work within weeks of the first COVID-19 outbreaks. Job losses were concentrated in casualised industries such as retail, recreation, arts and culture, hospitality, and accommodation. We examine policy discourses framing independent work, entrepreneurial workers and flexible work relations as essential for ‘economic recovery’, where this means business flexibility, productivity and future economic prosperity. We draw on these framings to show how the equation of flexible work relations and productivity underpins the Australian Government’s response to unemployment caused by the pandemic, as reflected in policy announcements and proposed changes to industrial relations law. In these proposals, constructions of ‘job creation’ and ‘economic recovery’ rationalise industrial relations changes that further empower business, through conflating public and business interest. At the same time, ensuing labour market deregulation and the changing profile of business renders the very idea of ‘jobs’ tendentious. JEL Codes: J08, J28, J31, J38

The Evolving Role of Aged Care Managers in Australia: A content analysis of aged care manager job descriptions

“…The market-orientated job skill valuation framework [4] was adopted for this project to reflect Australia's neoliberalist approach to employment and productivity [14]. The framework assumed that each 'job position' is a composite of required skills, competencies, and attributes that an employer seeks, and thus willing to pay for.…”

The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Economic Responses on First Home Buyers? Evidence from New South Wales, Australia

“…First home ownership in Australia has become increasingly complex, with considerable research reviewing deteriorating affordability [10][11][12]19,31,32]. Young people, in particular, have struggled to obtain home ownership, with many accepting that the situation will likely remain unchanged for the foreseeable future [32,33]. A recent survey by Genworth [34] further supports this sentiment, with FHBs continuing to "adjust their expectations" and even conceding that their first home purchase will not be their ideal home but rather a way of entering the market.…”

“…Sassen [61] added that, in expanding the operational space for advanced capitalism, people are at risk of losing possessions and poverty levels are likely to increase. This can also be observed through the aforementioned neoliberalised workforce and the emergence of the "gig" employee [33]. The casualisation of employment is prevalent in industries employing younger workers [23], and yet, many of these casual workers received little from the government JobKeeper support program [33], favouring multibillion-dollar businesses, many of which did not experience the required 30% drop in revenue [13].…”

Comparative moral economies of crisis

“…As with the UK, the Australian government sought to maintain links between employers and employees and consistently maintained that this was one of the key benefits and intentions of the JobKeeper scheme. Unlike the UK, however, Australian employers were paid a flat rate of AUD 1,500 per fortnight for each full-time, part-time, and long-term casual employee (O’Keeffe and Papadopoulos, 2021: 9). The Australian government also provided direct support to childcare centres to keep them open as well as requiring them to provide free childcare to families, and altered the rules to make eligible for JobKeeper supplements, at a cost of AUD 2.6 billion over three months (Klapdor, 2020a).…”