The ACTU is pushing for a four-day work week
SALLY MCMANUS, ACTU SECRETARY: Thanks. Great to be here.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, you are putting forward this proposal for a four-day working week to the Treasurer's productivity roundtable. How would it lift productivity?
SALLY MCMANUS: First of all, I want to be clear about this. It is not just a four-day working week, it is about reducing working hours. A four-day working week doesn't work everywhere obviously. So it is about reducing hours over time.
First of all, it improves productivity because the Productivity Commission itself has said that working long hours is a drain on productivity and just the basics, obviously workers working long hours are less productivity.
Secondly we've now got peer-reviewed studies, we've got trials that are happening here in Australia and overseas, and it is not us saying it, it is those studies that are showing that reducing working hours like a four-day working week can increase productivity and in most cases that's what those studies are showing, so long as they're smartly implemented.
SARAH FERGUSON: Let me just ask you about one of those studies that you are relying on which is the Nature Journal study. They say they didn't in that study actually analyse company-wide productivity. Have you or has anyone actually been able to measure the productivity benefit from a four-day week?
SALLY MCMANUS: I will just say this, over a period of time we've had arguments every single time we've asked for shorter working hours, and your introduction went through that. Actually since 1886 we've been asking this type of thing.
Every single time we've been told, "Oh, it will be bad for productivity." The basics of the fact that long working hours, you get less productive, the longer hours you work, because you can't concentrate, you are more stressed, you are more burnout, should be obvious to anyone.
And on one hand, we had this whole debate about AI where some people are saying that is going to lead to jobs being lost, no need to have workers anymore, because AI is going to do it all. Isn't it natural for us then to say, well, if that's the case, perhaps we should be working less hours, perhaps we should be sharing the benefits of improved technology.
SARAH FERGUSON: You want, what the ACTU is saying today is that you want improvements with productivity, some of those that you are talking about in relation to AI, to be fairly shared with workers, but aren't you getting ahead of yourselves at the moment, because there is no productivity lift. We are still in a productivity crisis, so what are you offering to tackle that productivity crisis, apart from a change to working hours?
SALLY MCMANUS: Sarah, I say we should spend just as much time talking about making sure the productivity gains are fairly shared as we should about improving it and I say that because the last 25 years, working people in Australia have not fairly shared in productivity increases.
We would be much better off, working people, your average working person, $350 a week better off if we fairly shared.
So we've heard all types of claims by all sorts of people, saying if only we lifted productivity, automatically everyone is going to be better off. Well, guess what? It doesn't work like that.
There is no direct debit system that employers have got set up that automatically flows on those benefits to workers. We have to continually fight for it whether it be in pay rises or shorter working hours.
So need to talk about this issue because why are we talking about productivity? We are talking about it because we want people's lives to be better, and people's lives aren't better if companies are just doing better. If their profits are doing really well and we're not sharing in it, well then, it's defeating the purpose of improving productivity in the first place.
SARAH FERGUSON: Let me ask you about the timing and in a sense the politics of this. You knew in advance that the Government wasn't going to take up the proposal, so why are you proposing it now for the roundtable, I mean.
SALLY MCMANUS: Well, Sarah, I know decision-makers say no 100 times before they say yes. It is the job of the union movement obviously to advocate the things we actually believe in, and we believe in this and we also believe that it is good for productivity if you have healthy and happy workers, and that we should be talking about fairly sharing the gains, and we should be talking about less working hours if the AI revolution also leads to less need for workers.
SARAH FERGUSON: Let me talk about that AI revolution. We had Scott Farquhar on the program last night talking about it. Just for anybody who didn't see that, he is the former CEO of Atlassian and now head of the Tech Council. He was talking about the request that you have made public, that unions should at the very least be involved but in a sense have an effective veto over the introduction of new AI into workplaces. He says that is the wrong approach. Are you concerned that what you're asking for could stifle Australian innovation in a hyper competitive world?
SALLY MCMANUS: Well, you know, a year ago I was actually quite optimistic and excited about AI and its potential and I'm not saying that don't have any of that now, but I've got more concerned as time has gone on, and so have unions, and the reason is because we've seen the first adopters of this, actually, the big US tech companies which are just brutally laying off people, we want to avoid that.
AI could be very, very good for us, or it could be very, very bad for us, and that will depend on who is making the decisions and what we're asking for is a say in those decisions.
SARAH FERGUSON: If I may, you are asking for more than a say, because you are asking for that say to be mandatory. So you are not just asking to make a contribution to a debate, you are asking for something more than that?
SALLY MCMANUS: It is already mandatory for employers to consult workers...
SARAH FERGUSON: So why do you need more powers when it comes AI?
SALLY MCMANUS: The difference with AI is that it gets introduced and then we are dealing with, or workers are dealing with the consequences which are job losses which is the point where they start consulting. What we are saying is that you should consult with your workers and reach agreement on the things that they are going to be really be worried about like their jobs and are they going to be retrained and what about their privacy and their data when you make the decision to introduce AI.
We say this is a good thing for companies as well because workers are going to want to embrace something if you take away their base fears of losing their job, of having their data stolen, of all of those things, you are going to have the good implementation of AI, not one where people are fearful and also, quite frankly, resentful of AI coming in and taking their jobs and being imposed on them.
SARAH FERGUSON: Sally McManus, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
SALLY MCMANUS: Thank you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
10 minutes ago
- ABC News
NDIS shake-up sets stage for summit showdown on budget cuts and tax reform as roundtable enters final day
Union bosses, business chiefs, ministers and bureaucrats have been locked in parliament's Cabinet Room for two days, stripped of their phones and fuelled by sandwiches and sushi, in the hope they might hash out ways to fix Australia's productivity problem. Today may prove the trickiest yet as the conversation shifts from broad ambition to the hard realities of looming structural deficits and tax reform. The stage for cutting government spending was set yesterday by Health and Disability Minister Mark Butler's announcement that Labor would seek to curb the NDIS's growth to between 5 and 6 per cent annually. That would bring the $40 billion scheme into line with Medicare and other major programs. The question now is how. Mr Butler admitted his comments would be "hard for some parents to hear". Too many autistic children, he argued, were entering the scheme and eligibility rules would need to change fundamentally. He said without reform, the NDIS risked losing its "social licence" as costs ballooned and public trust eroded under perceptions of rorting. As part of the transition, the federal government would tip $2 billion into Thriving Kids, a new program outside the NDIS aimed at supporting children with mild to moderate developmental delays and autism. The scheme, he said, should be up and running by July next year. The Coalition meanwhile has pledged to work constructively with the government on "sensible NDIS reform" to secure the scheme's future, but accused Labor of over-promising and under-delivering. "Too often, Labor makes announcements but fails on delivery. There is still no agreement with the states and territories on vital NDIS reforms in relation to foundational supports," the opposition said. "Further to this, the states and territories will carry much of the responsibility for broader disability and educational support services for children in particular under the minister's plans." State governments told the ABC they were still waiting on detail about how those responsibilities would be resourced. Queensland Minister for Disability Services, Amanda Camm, said Mr Butler's speech was the first she had heard of the Thriving Kids program, but added she looked forward to working with the Federal Government, "given the NDIS is their responsibility." A spokesperson for the Northern Territory government said states and territories were only briefed on the plans on Wednesday afternoon. Ahead of the announcement, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey told the ABC the states needed more clarity from Canberra. "There's a very complex interaction between who needs to do what, how we're going to have to pay for it, but equally, how are we making sure that our NDIS system is interfacing with our health system?" he asked. That NDIS shake-up now sets the stage for today's conversations. The government delivered back-to-back budget surpluses last term, but deficits loom as permanent features of the fiscal landscape unless structural pressures are brought under control. Defence, aged care, hospitals, Medicare and child care are all expanding commitments that will be under the microscope of attendees today. Treasury Secretary Jenny Wilkinson will open proceedings with a keynote speech on budget sustainability. She will stress the need for efficiency, better service delivery, and smarter use of technology to contain costs and preserve outcomes for government services. Her comments are expected to lead into a discussion on whether digitisation and AI can improve the quality and delivery of government services. And later, participants will turn to the prickly issue of tax reform. In the lead-up to the forum, union leaders and welfare groups called for changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, while business groups backed in the Productivity Commission's recommendations for lower company tax rates. Attendees will also examine what can be done to navigate the reality that working-age Australians will shoulder more of the tax burden in the years ahead, generating the lion's share of income tax revenue and absorbing bracket creep that will steadily push up average tax rates. In June, Treasurer Jim Chalmers told the National Press Club that "no sensible progress can be made on productivity, resilience or budget sustainability without proper consideration of more tax reform." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has since downplayed the prospect of any immediate changes. Instead, the ideas raised this week could shape the next three budgets, or be taken to the Australian people at the next election.
ABC News
10 minutes ago
- ABC News
Productivity summit proves disappointing for unions as Labor dismisses ACTU's ideas
Sally McManus has been feeling a little lonely around the economic reform roundtable this week. "Sometimes we feel a bit outnumbered," the ACTU secretary told the ABC at the midway point of this three-day gathering. "Obviously there's a lot of business representatives there." There's still a day to go, but it's clear this roundtable is not proving as successful for the unions as the Jobs and Skills Summit held in Labor's first term. Back then, the ACTU walked away with a showbag full of goodies, including multi-employer bargaining, much to the chagrin of business groups, who have been grumbling ever since. This time McManus and ACTU president Michele O'Neil again came armed with a whole bunch of big ideas on tax, artificial intelligence, a shorter working week, and a levy on businesses to fund employee training. None have taken off. The training levy idea was described by one of the business organisation representatives as a "crock of sh*t". "I wouldn't say that it had a lot of fans amongst business," McManus conceded. The ACTU's call for a new Artificial Intelligence Act, and "mandatory enforceable agreements that would compel employers to consult with their staff" before AI is introduced to workplaces, hasn't won many fans either. While keen to strike the right balance on AI, several cabinet ministers have privately made clear a new AI Act is a non-starter. "I think it might be a bit lonely on AI," McManus predicted before heading into the roundtable session on the topic. The idea of a four-day working week met short shrift too. The prime minister was immediately dismissive. "I think a lot of people would like to have a five-day working week," he noted, insisting the government had "no plans" to pursue the ACTU's idea. So much for the union "stitch-up", predicted by the Coalition ahead of this roundtable. The ACTU is yet to score a victory. The treasurer's priority in this term has shifted from tackling cost of living to productivity. Jim Chalmers made that clear the morning after the government's emphatic election win. And Labor is not finding productivity solutions in what the union movement is pushing. In its second term, Labor is more willing to say no. All is not lost, however, for the ACTU. There's one day to go in this roundtable and the final topic is tax. It's here that McManus is holding onto hope. The government hardly rushed to embrace the ACTU's plan to wind back negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks, but McManus detects some momentum at the roundtable. "The biggest thing that people agree on is the need to address intergenerational inequality," she said. It's true there's growing support for something to be done about the heavy income tax burden being shouldered by younger working age Australians, who feel locked out of the housing market, while predominantly older property investors enjoy the bulk of tax breaks. Independent MP Allegra Spender and former treasury secretary Ken Henry (both roundtable attendees) have spoken of the need to urgently tackle this inequity. A Treasury issues paper released for the roundtable also unsubtly pointed to this problem. It highlighted how the reliance on income tax is only forecast to grow, while the highest income earners are the overwhelming beneficiaries of existing tax breaks. Two weeks ago, the prime minister shot down expectations of major tax changes any time soon when he declared: "the only tax policy we're implementing is the one we took to the election." He's not about to spring big surprises on the electorate. But it wasn't a never ever on tax. As he opened the roundtable proceedings on Tuesday, Albanese gave an insight into his cautious approach to reform. "I think that political change, whether it's in the economy, social policy or the environment, is likely to be more successful and more entrenched and more lasting when people come with us on that journey," he said. The roundtable could be the start of a journey on tax that leads to the next election. Further steps might involve a more focused tax review, a Treasury options paper, and a greater effort to build public consensus around the problems that need fixing and possible solutions. That won't satisfy those who want more urgent action and for Albanese to spend his political capital now. Nor will it please the opposition, which reckons all the "hoo-ha" around this roundtable is so far producing a ho-hum result on cutting red tape. But if this three-day event at least gets the ball rolling on more substantial tax reform, Sally McManus won't be feeling so lonely. David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
The Australian
an hour ago
- The Australian
Information technology can solve many of nation's problems
As Australians, we grow up thinking of ourselves as a relatively young country. After all, when most of us grew up, the second line of our national anthem even declared that we were 'young and free'. In reality, though, we are middle-aged among all the nations of the world. Look at a political world map from 1901, when Australia's constitutional system of government was established, and the list of nations that have come and gone across all the inhabited continents is striking. Australians live every day with the legacy of decisions made in the 19th century about how we govern ourselves. We just probably don't notice because we are so used to it. Some of those legacies – and how we had to move beyond them – have left us reminders even today. For example, how we had to build a single national rail gauge, leaving us Australia's longest rail platform in Albury where passengers between NSW and Victoria had to swap trains because the tracks were different in the two states! Other examples persist, not only consuming enormous bureaucratic effort in all governments but also having real impacts on the lives of Australians. Think of the cross-border recognition of vocational training qualifications and trade certificates, drivers' licences with different restrictions, specific business regulations such as health and safety, employment obligations, or car registration requiring different roadworthiness assessments. The National Competition Policy reforms of the early 1990s addressed scores of examples. But it has proven to be a game of whack-a-mole – as one problem is fixed, new state-based regulation seems to pop up presenting more challenges. Governments have tried in the past to fix these inconsistencies top down through national agreements. But there is another way to think about some of these problems – by focusing on the data and the technology that can turn it into actionable information. One of the best examples is how our three tiers of government pay for and manage infrastructure. Community requirements for infrastructure, and the associated costs, have exploded with population growth and changes in the way we live. Think about cars. In 1921, two decades after federation, there were fewer than 100,000 cars registered in Australia. Today, there are about 22 million. Upgrading roads is both a necessity and very politically popular. But when it comes to the cost, it can become very complicated. The Bruce Highway in Queensland is a great case in point. The federal and Queensland governments have invested tens of billions of dollars in upgrading the road in the past decade. But the highway itself runs through 11 local council areas. The responsibility for the maintenance of the highway and the roads and infrastructure joining and around it is shared between three tiers of government. Does anyone driving along the highway know or care? Do they know or care if they are paying for it through their federal taxes, state fees, levies and taxes of local rates? Probably not. But they will certainly notice if the driving experience in one part of their journey is wildly different to another. Governments could try to get together to discuss how they most effectively navigate the constitutional division of powers and responsibility for every type and piece of infrastructure. Or they could take a look at the investment already made in information technology that can deliver more value. For example, almost all of the councils the Bruce runs through are using the same asset management system to schedule their work on road assets. Imagine if all that data from all the councils was combined by the Queensland or federal government so decisions about where money was most urgently needed was based on a complete understanding. How much more efficiently would money be spent? How much better and more consistent – not to say safe – would the experience of travelling along the highway become? This is not a specific criticism of the management of the Bruce today. The same applies to hundreds of asset types that are paid for by one tier of government, managed by another, but used by people who are residents of a council, and a state but think of themselves as Australians. We have the technology. Thinking a little differently about how we can use it might just open up a whole new way to advance Australia fair – and fairly. Ed Chung is CEO of TechnologyOne.
