Originally Posted by
43Inches
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
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.
Your original contention was about the "casualised nature of the Aged care workforce". I've demonstrated with verifiable data from a reputable source that the aged care workforce has not been casualised. Don't like the data, come up with something better rather than trying to change the meaning of words.
For fear of stating the blindingly obvious, delivery drivers, casual or otherwise, are not part of the aged care workforce; they're part of the transportation industry workforce.
As to yet another false contention from you, that I've argued that the casual workforce was not involved in spreading COVID-19, I haven't said boo about that. That's just something else you've made up. I commented quite specifically on your patently and demonstrably false contention that the aged care workforce was casualised. It's not. If you're going to trot out misconstrued opinion in the unconditionally declarative form as a fact, expect to be called on it once in a while.
As to your changing tact, I've seen little demonstrated in this exchange. Unless you were looking to change the accepted meaning of another word, I suspect that you meant "tack".