Yes, it does. For residential direct care workers (ie workers who spend most of their time in contact with and moving among the aged in their care), 10.1 percent of the workforce was casual or contract.
The breakdown by sub-group was Registered Nurses - 9.8 percent, Enrolled Nurses - 7.8 percent, Personal Care Attendants - 10.8 percent, and Allied Health Workers - 4.8 percent. In 2012 those numbers were 18.7 percent of the direct care workforce was casual or contract; Registered Nurses - 19.4 percent, Enrolled Nurses - 14.8 percent, Personal Care Attendants - 19.5 percent, and Allied Health Workers - 15.1 percent.
And just by the bye, only 4 percent of the direct care workforce had a second job in residential aged care.
This is just silly, at least two aged care facilities the virus spread to via a casual delivery driver, so those figures mean nothing. As I said measuring how many nurses are at a facility does not matter. You are just pulling stats out of your backside to make some weird argument that somehow casual workforce was not involved in the spread. When in Melbourne it was directly responsible for it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-...tions/12464302
The Victorian aged care sector is trying to stop casuals from working at a number of different residential homes because, in some cases, staff who were unwell had inadvertently brought the virus into aged care facilities.
By the by, the federal government as I said earlier has actually restricted movement between sites, as they have recognised it as an issue. Basically you have to just work at the site that gives you the most work.
I decided to change tact with the issue,
Aged care is considered highly casualised for a simple reason, the part time positions that 78% of the workforce are on are basically casual conditions (or worse) in a contract. A lot of those contracts guarantee less than 10 hours a week and only exist as they corner the applicant into working casual hours at agreement pay (less than casual rates) rather than casual pay rates. Now maybe I should have used the words quasi-casualisation, but most people involved with the industry refer to it as straight casualisation. The term is used to show a move away from full time positions and the part time positions are actually worse than being on casual rates. Part-timilised workforce doesn't quite sound correct.