Future Workplace

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Power imbalances are doing far more to change the way we work than are apps.
With all the hype around the future of work, you could be forgiven for thinking the biggest issue in the future of employment is the impending takeover of your job by a robot or an algorithm.
Talk about the workplace of the future has become fixated on technological displacement almost to the point of hysteria. There is little doubt that technological development will change the way we work, as it has in the past.
But for most Australians the reality will be much less dramatic. The biggest changes in the working lives of Australians over the past 20 years have arguably not been technological – few of us are sending our avatars to meetings or writing code.
Many of us are, however, lamenting the paradox of feeling overworked yet, at the same time, insecure in our employment. A significant proportion contend with <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-20/reserve-bank-philip-lowe-warns-of-low-wage-growth-impact/10515756" target="_blank">record low wages growth</a>. Others remain <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0main+features10September%202018" target="_blank">less than fully employed</a>.
Some will say that the rate of insecure or non-permanent work has remained fairly constant over the past two decades. This belies the lived experience of workers. They have repeatedly been found to perceive their connections to the workplace and labour market as <a href="http://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/2111/1/Shifting-Risk-report.pdf" target="_blank">precarious</a> and <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/theausinstitute/pages/2807/attachments/original/1528337971/Insecure_Work_Factbook.pdf?1528337971" target="_blank">laden with personal risk</a>.
Power has been shifting
The changes have often involved the fragmentation or <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674975446&amp;content=reviews" target="_blank">fissuring of work</a> through outsourcing, global supply chains, independent contracting, labour hire and digital labour platforms.
But there has been more to it than the tweaking of business practices. The relationship between business and the state has been subject to a fundamental realignment.
Since the industrial relations changes in the early 1990s, which moved the setting of wages and conditions away from centralised institutions towards the workplace, the locus of power in the labour market has undergone substantial recalibration.
Collective representation of workers has declined sharply. This is <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/mar/pdf/bu-0317-2-insights-into-low-wage-growth-in-australia.pdf" target="_blank">recognised</a> as contributing to the wage stagnation being felt in Australia and other rich nations.
A 2018 article in <a href="https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/05/31/if-wages-are-to-rise-workers-need-more-bargaining-power" target="_blank">The Economist</a> acknowledged this, noting that while politicians were scrambling for scapegoats and solutions, addressing stagnant wages required “a better understanding of the relationship between pay, productivity and power”.
A crucial aspect of understanding this relationship is recognising the impact that business consolidation has had. It has not only changed the experience of work, but also altered the balance of power between businesses and workers and between some businesses and other businesses.
The ascendance of global monoliths − such as Walmart, Amazon, Apple and Uber (and the big retailers and e-tailers in Australia) – has resulted in organisations that wield enormous economic and cultural power. This has led not only to a reduction in worker power but also to the creation of a crushingly competitive environment for the businesses that have to contend with contract terms dictated by the corporate giants.
What has been the result of the combination of changing business models, reconfigured institutions and the onslaught of business consolidation?
We have seen hyper-competition based on low labour costs, management approaches that skirt worker protection laws, and weaker regulatory oversight.
It has manifested in almost weekly scandals regarding sham contracting, exploitation of workers and what appears to be an epidemic of underpayment in a roll call of some of Australia’s most “successful” companies, among them <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-stop-businesses-stealing-from-their-employees-83363" target="_blank">7-Eleven</a>, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/AvoidanceofFairWork/Report" target="_blank">Caltex</a> and <a href="https://www.mwji.org/highlights/2017/11/14/report-released-wage-theft-in-australia-findings-of-the-national-temporary-migrant-work-survey" target="_blank">Domino’s</a>) .
We can shift it back
The policy prescription to remedy the scourge of work insecurity and exploitation is decidedly unsexy. It goes against the zeitgeist that seems to suggest that any change that disrupts an existing system, rule or institution should be hailed as “innovative” and be uncontested.
It requires some reflection and the rebirth of aspects of our industrial relations system that have been lost but have redeeming features.
Key among these old-fashioned remedies is the encouragement of workers and employers to organise and recentralise bargaining.
A stated aim of the federal <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1904A00013" target="_blank">Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904</a> was “to facilitate and encourage the organisation of representative bodies of employers and of employees”.
Granted, back then the act was also about keeping industrial peace by preventing lockouts and strikes. This is no longer much of an issue in our era of record low industrial action. But, in the current context of fragmented work, it is unrealistic to expect individual employers and employees to engage in endless rounds of labour-intensive productivity bargaining, with little to show for it.
The economies of scale that were part of a centralised system were lost when workplace-based bargaining system took over. These could be regained, to the advantage of both employees and employers.
While that policy prescription looks similar to the original Conciliation and Arbitration system, the rationale behind it differs markedly.
No longer would it be simply about addressing the power dynamics between employers and employees. It would also be about addressing the inequitable power dynamics between mega-corporations and businesses subjected to their might.
A challenge for left and right
Arguments relating to the need for flexibility and regulatory reform, which were the basis of the 1990s decentralisation, were not without merit. Global competition was accelerating and there was a real concern that the Australian economy would not be able to keep pace. So greater agency was given <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/speech/australia%E2%80%99s-experience-driving-economic-growth-through-competition-policy-reforms" target="_blank">to businesses so they could adjust and lift productivity</a>.
But we are now living in very different times. Neither excessive industrial action nor the spectre of poor productivity looms. It is neither intellectually or politically honest to use these as a basis for opposing proposals to recentralising bargaining.
Also, we need to acknowledge that the biggest beneficiaries of the disaggregation introduced in the early 1990s were the biggest businesses.
A more centralised system could allow employers and employees to combine their power to counter competitive pressures from mega-corporations that want to reduce labour standards. They have facilitated toxic workplace practices, including intensive surveillance, unrealistic performance expectations, avoidance of entitlements and exploitation of workers further down supply chains.
Constructing an industrial relations framework that tackles the insecurity that is being experienced now and the further insecurity that may be wrought by technological change is potentially confronting for both sides of the ideological divide.
Elements on the left may be reluctant to acknowledge that not all businesses are the same, that some are being squashed by the structure of the market. Some on the right might not be prepared to concede that the bright idea of the 1990s – reducing union influence and worker voices – has succeeded so well as to create perverse and economically unhelpful outcomes.
Both sides need to lift their gaze above the workplace. They need to recognise that earlier reforms are no longer the right ones now, admit that individual business might not be the best level at which to manage the technological change, and acknowledge where the new power lies, then act accordingly.
Sarah Kaine, Associate Professor UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation, University of Technology Sydney
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-workplace-challenge-facing-australia-spoiler-alert-its-not-technology-111492" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

The workplace challenge facing Australia (spoiler alert – it’s not technology)

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION<a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828"></a>
That casualisation and self-employment rates are not increasing is often trotted out to dispute perceptions that workplace insecurity is growing.
But retorts like this miss a few key points.
First, the real causes of growing insecurity aren’t the type of contracts people are on. While these things matter, the real causes of insecurity are the way organisations are being structured these days. This is designed to minimise costs, transfer risk from corporations to employees, and centralise power away from employees.
Second, aggregate data mask variations between industries.
Third (and least importantly) there are some measurement issues.
Reducing cost and risk
Large corporations want to minimise their costs and risks, avoid accountability when things go wrong and ensure products have the features they want.
This partially explains the dramatic increase in franchised businesses – the franchisee bears responsibility for scandals such as underpaying workers.
Other corporations call in labour hire companies to take on responsibility for their workers. This cuts costs and transfers risk down the chain – which means jobs are more insecure.
Some set up spin-offs or subsidiaries. Some just outsource to contracting firms.
Most people working for franchises, spin-offs, subsidiaries and labour hire firms are still employees. It’s more efficient for capital to control workers through the employment relationship than to pay them piece rates as contractors. That would run the risk of worker desertion or of shortcuts affecting quality.
Is casualisation the same as insecurity?
Even employees at the bottom of the supply chain might get annual and sick leave. Offering leave helps attract labour and might be cheaper than paying casual loading.
And there’s no need to hire someone on a casual contract if you can make them redundant when the work dries up — if, for example, you lose your contract with the main parent firm. If your firm can go bankrupt, then you often won’t even have to pay redundancy benefits.
There are also the measurement issues. The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts the number of “employees without paid leave entitlements”. People take this to mean “casuals”. On this measure, the share of casuals in the workforce has shifted little in a decade, after growing substantially earlier.
If we take the liberty of labelling people without leave as “casuals”, then the number of “casual” full-timers grew by 38% between 2009 and 2017. Labour hire workers are usually casual full-time workers.
“Permanent” full-timers (those with annual leave) grew by just 10%.
On the other hand, some organisations have found relying on part-time casuals counterproductive, as workers had no commitment and became unreliable. Some large retailers now use “permanent” part-timers rather than casuals.
So-called “casual” part-timers grew by just 13% between 2009 and 2016. “Permanent” part-timers grew by 36%.
A lot of variation between industries and periods is hidden by aggregate figures. Franchising has grown in retailing. Labour hire in mining. Outsourcing in the public sector. Second jobs in manufacturing. Spin-offs in communications. Casualisation in education and training. Global supply chains send jobs overseas to low-paid, often dangerous workplaces in a number of industries.
The ABS doesn’t measure the precarity of work experienced by people who now work in franchises, spin-offs, subsidiaries or contractor firms. But as their continued employment depends on the fortunes of their direct employer, more than the firm at the top of the chain, precarity is real.
Underemployment has grown
Many “permanent” part-time jobs may be good jobs. But the continuing growth of part-time employment is linked to another form of insecurity – underemployment.
Between 2010-11 and 2016-17, the number of hours sought, but not worked, by underemployed people grew by 31%. This is five times the total growth in hours worked.
Large firms don’t even need to spin off workers to smaller business units to make use of underemployment.
There are other important sources of worker insecurity. In Australia, for example, firms can seek to have enterprise agreements terminated, or get a handful of workers to sign new agreements, to cut pay and conditions.
Some firms seek to put employees onto contrived arrangements that make them out to be contractors. Often that’s illegal.
The growing insecurity and hence low power of workers – even those with leave entitlements – helps explain why wage growth is stagnating.
Indeed, the successful “war on wages” may be the biggest sign of worker insecurity.
And what about the gig economy?
The gig economy, or more accurately the platform economy, is a big challenge to the employment relationship. This is because virtual platforms provide a new, cheap form of control that may replace the need for the employment relationship.
But there are still limits to the use of cost cutting and of platform control. The gig economy will grow, but it won’t overtake the employment relationship.
Gig work is one form of self-employment and we should remember that, overall, self-employment is not increasing. Self-employment declined between 2000 and 2014 in 26 countries for which data were available, and increased in only 11 (see chart below).
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229705/original/file-20180729-106521-3hokgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Changes in self-employment, 2000-2014, various countries. OECD, Author provided
What’s more, even the relative importance of large firms in total employment is not decreasing. That’s probably because of another trend — the concentration of markets in the hands of those firms.
In short, large powerful firms are getting more powerful, but their directly employed workforces are not getting larger. The result is a lot of workers with insecure incomes and a lot of insecure small-business owners as well.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100668/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">This means insecurity gnaws away, even while the employment relationship remains the dominant mode for deploying labour, and employment with leave entitlements remains its main form.
David Peetz, Professor of Employment Relations, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/self-employment-and-casual-work-arent-increasing-but-so-many-jobs-are-insecure-whats-going-on-100668" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Self-employment and casual work aren’t increasing but so many jobs are insecure – what’s going on?

<html><body>
<div>The NSW Government has approved a new office accommodation policy that will encourage greater workplace flexibility for government sector employees.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>CEO of Property NSW, Brett Newman, said the office accommodation policy contained principles to inform government office spaces of the future, with a focus on co-locating agencies in government office hubs in key strategic Sydney CBD, metropolitan and regional centres.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“With the Government reducing its Sydney CBD office footprint and moving to a fully flexible government sector workforce, we’re committed to ensuring our property portfolio can deliver improved outcomes for workers and better value for money for taxpayers,” Mr Newman said.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“At present, government office accommodation across the Sydney CBD, metropolitan and regional areas is highly fragmented, costly and of varying quality."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Our hubs strategy will focus on co-locating staff across departments with shared facilities, helping to break down silos and ultimately encouraging better collaboration across government.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The hubs strategy will initially focus on Sydney’s CBD, where the NSW Government has more than 300,000sqm of leased space across 50 buildings.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Property NSW has been tasked with developing the policy</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Between now and 2020, the Government is planning on delivering more than 140,000 sqm of collaborative office space across metropolitan and regional locations.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This includes new or refurbished office space in Phillip St and 4 Parramatta Square, Parramatta; Macquarie Park; Gosford; The Rocks; Sydney Olympic Park; Orange, and Liverpool.  </div>
</body></html>

NSW government's new policy to create flexible work hubs

<html><body>
What will the building of the future look like?
Engineering and infrastructure advisory company Aurecon has released a white paper on the topic, including what’s driving demand, challenges inherent in reaching ‘intelligent building’ status and what some of the next steps in this journey might be. 
Titled 'Buildings of the Future: science fiction or science fact?', the white paper is based on interviews of industry professionals who were asked to imagine what Buildings of the Future might look like and how they might be created.
“The major drivers identified in the paper have the potential to reshape the built environment industry in the next 30 years,” said Peter Greaves, Aurecon’s Buildings of the Future Leader.
Author Arthur C Clark once said that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In a way — this captures the essence of what technology installed in Buildings of the Future should aim to achieve. The technology should ‘just work’ without the user understanding how. 
It says that 3D printing technology will have a huge impact on the design engineering industry.
“The 3D printer is significantly disrupting the traditional design role held by the structural engineer but, at the same time, presents exciting new opportunities in how building designers will create, relocate and shape Buildings of the Future,” said Greaves.
A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to Buildings of the Future is becoming less palatable nowadays while new, flexible construction materials, including composite materials, additive manufacturing concrete, solar polymers and carbon fibre balsa, is fuelling new design approaches. 
“These options are unlocking the architectural limitations of size, weight and shape that the building and construction industry works within today,” he said. “To bring this to life, the thought processes, measurements and methods commonly used in our industry will also have to evolve.”
It said another innovation in the building management field was developing shared services in facilities management within a precinct.  
Greaves said innovators would work on the idea of shared building maintenance hubs, which would be designed to provide facilities for all local buildings to centrally monitor electricity, water, energy storage common areas and integrate other aspects of maintenance and management of operational efficiencies.
The Western Sydney Airport and Greater Sydney’s development could become a prime example of an opportunity to implement this, says the paper.
It highlighted the ‘whole of precinct’ approach to the management of facilities and wider infrastructure assets and stressed the 2017-2018 Federal Budget’s commitment to several large infrastructure projects in the area, including high-speed rail to Western Sydney.
“If we’re going to help design Buildings of the Future, we have to be able to envision them,” said James Bennett, Aurecon’s managing director, Built Environment. “Aurecon wants to be a forerunner in helping our clients identify the opportunities this presents and facilitating these changes.”
“Those who shape Buildings of the Future will be those who, firstly, realise that our world is changing and have the boldness to not only let go of, but question, the status quo so that working with government and economic leaders, we might reimagine our physical spaces and infrastructure. Engineers need to lead such conversations,” asserted Bennett. 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Buildings of the future: science fiction or science fact? 

<html><body>
Workspaces of the future must be designed to be better than any alternative, according to Tim Lovitt, Associate Director of Digital Intelligence, PwC Australia.
He recently suggested said the firm could take up co-working space in future in the new building at Barangaroo. 
“PwC has been experimenting for over a year with co-working space," he said.
"We have diverse partnerships, including Facebook and LinkedIn, tailored to solving specific problems for individual projects.
"This is our focus, and we will build our workspace around that.”
Lovitt said workspaces of the future must be designed to be better than any alternative. 
“Workspaces of the future will need to be incredible spaces that people wish to work in, that are better than the alternatives – such as our lounge rooms or the local coffee shop,” concluded Mr Lovitt. 
He made the comments at Knight Frank Australia's Global Cities: The 2017 Report launch which investigated the future of real estate in the world’s leading cities. 
According to Knight Frank’s Head of Research and Consulting, Australia Matt Whitby, disruption is set to equal demand in the real estate sector. 
“Yes, jobs are being lost across sectors globally due to automation and technology, but humans are getting more interesting careers doing what humans do best – problem solving. This will be similar for property professionals, who need to embrace changes in the sector and the economy and become more advisory – offering greater intelligence and idea generation to clients," he said.
“New jobs being created are offering a flow-on effect into other sectors, including property. For example, the Fintech sector, including cashless payments and other financial technology, has created a complete new industry. This is prompting new demand in other sectors, including real estate. Newly-created, high-value jobs in programming or app design are creating demand for expensive, trendy offices.”
Whitby agreed co-working will be one of the biggest growth sectors in the global city office markets, with Sydney and Melbourne leading the way here in Australia. 
“It will not just be start up, incubator, or collaborative businesses. Demand for co-working space will expand to the large, corporate occupiers who require growth or project space on an as-needed basis.”
Whitby said WeWork is the obvious example as in Sydney, WeWork has gone from zero space six months ago and will occupy 22,000 square metres of space by next year.”
In October WeWork Martin Place opened in the heart of Sydney’s central business district surrounded by Australia's financial institutions in an historic Sydney building, the Moneybox Building.
Designed by WeWork, along with local external consultant TomMarkHenry, the design takes cues from the building’s banking history as the hot desks on the main floor were inspired by the old bank teller desks that can still be seen in the lobby. Murals and paintings from local artists Tristan Kerr and Dina Broadhurst adorn the inside of the building.
Last month WeWork, the space, community and services provider based in New York, opened its second Sydney location, at 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont (above). 
WeWork currently has around 70,000 members, located in 100+ physical locations in 30+ cities and 12 countries around the world.
WeWork Pyrmont is located in a former 100 year old woolstore and presents a unique opportunity for one of WeWork's spaces.
The issue of pets in the office was addressed by Savills International.
"Popularity for bringing <a href="https://www.savills.com.au/blog/article/147357/australia-articles/pets-in-the-office--is-it-just-a-fad-or-a-does-it-deliver-real-benefit-.aspx" target="_blank">pets to the workplace</a> seems to be increasing around the world," it noted.
"In the United States, a 2015 Society for Human Resource Management survey found that 8 percent of American workplaces allowed employees to bring pets to work (up from 5 percent in 2013).
"Within Australia, the uptake for large corporations has not been very high, although the types of companies that have embraced this new fur-friendly culture tend to be creative or industries such as fashion, tech, IT, media and start-ups," the Savills report noted. 
It noted the location of the workplace can also greatly affect the likelihood of the company to include pets in the office.
"We are seeing companies on the city fringe and suburban locations more open to the idea of pets in the office, as there is plenty of space in the surrounding areas for the animals to have a break outside of the office."
Savills wondered did the trend deliver real benefit to your company, or is it just a distraction? 
What are the benefits?
For the employees: Employees who bring their pets to the office often have less stress and a healthier work-life balance
For the workplace: It can be a great improvement to the workplace culture - pets are a great conversation starter and can help strengthen working relationships
For the business: Having pets in the office can encourage employees to stay longer hours and businesses have shown a lower rate of employee absenteeism. Plus, pets in the office can be a drawcard for attracting new employees
For the animals: The animals get benefits too, including being out and about (instead of cooped up at home) and socialising with new people 
Things to consider
When considering drawbacks to having animals in the workplace, the number one concern is usually allergies. Depending on the type of allergy, one way to lessen the trigger of an allergy is to ensure the pets are clean &amp; groomed. Alternatively, employees should set up pet-free zones, or keep their pet close to their own workstations
It’s also important to select the right types of pets to bring into the office – overly animated or energetic animals can serve as a distraction in the workplace  
</body></html>

Future Workplace

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Future Workplace

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News