All borders to reopen.
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.
Last edited by MickG0105; 26th Aug 2021 at 08:11. Reason: Second job stats
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by 43Inches; 26th Aug 2021 at 11:22.
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.
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.
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".
Oops did mean change tack,
However my assertion still stands correct, the nature of the aged care sector is casualised. The part time agreements are casual in nature. So still efectively are casualising the workforce.
However my assertion still stands correct, the nature of the aged care sector is casualised. The part time agreements are casual in nature. So still efectively are casualising the workforce.
Mick, try googling the information. You seem to be proactive at googling statements or reports that support your premise that everything isn’t that bad. You are always on here saying how well the economy is going and how things are better than they seem. I call bollocks. There are countless economists online discussing how many businesses are failing. There are equally as many psychologists mentioning how counselling services are out of control. There are countless medical experts telling us that lockdowns are causing people to cancel doctors visits and things like cancer are going undiagnosed. Sure, online shopping, camper van and caravan sales and vehicle sales have skyrocketed. But ask the tourism operators and businesses, the taxi and transport industry and the hotel/motel industry how things are going and it’s a different story. Our economy has been broken in half. We have now been saddled with decades more debt. Using rigged stock market prices and inflated house prices as a measure of a strong economy is an absolute false reading.
I think this thread, in running its course, has highlighted how rooted Australia (and NZ) actually are; there are two distinct groups who are never going to see eye to eye on a major contemporary issue, and I see that also across society.
I would have suggested Mick visits Cairns and tells local businesses owners how well the economy is booming, but I fear it may result in him getting his lights punched out.
I think this thread, in running its course, has highlighted how rooted Australia (and NZ) actually are; there are two distinct groups who are never going to see eye to eye on a major contemporary issue, and I see that also across society.
I think this thread, in running its course, has highlighted how rooted Australia (and NZ) actually are; there are two distinct groups who are never going to see eye to eye on a major contemporary issue, and I see that also across society.
I have family in Cairns, I am well aware of the two-speed economy up there.
But, you know, glass half full - thanks for thinking of me.
Last edited by MickG0105; 27th Aug 2021 at 02:35. Reason: Reference to previous response.
AFL grand final in Cairns or Hobart I say.
How - we aren’t in the US State of Michigan? Australian legislatures aren’t controlled by the now crackpot US Republican Party. That bill (that bans mask and vaccine mandates) is doomed to fail in Michigan anyway, so zero chance of anything similar passing in Australia where both major parties support mandates.
The FDA is currently doing tests to see its effectiveness with Covid.
Of course it may help Covid symptoms, but it may not...
The Vaccines are NOW are proven to negate or hugely reduce Covid deaths.
There are side effects to any drug.
And still to this day, there is no known cure for any known Virus - including the common cold...
As far as the rubbish I’ve seen from anti-vaxxers in the last 12 months that was one of the worst.
1,218 new cases in New Sick Wales today, completely skipping the 1100's...The genie is well and truly out of the bottle, but of the 6 new deaths, all over 70, 4 unvaccinated, and two with only one dose. Now that makes me wonder, as I'm in my 30's having my second dose this arvo - though I would have preferred to not have them at all, that's not an option if I want to get back to work the way McGoose is carrying on...
But anyways... if people in their 70's & 80's haven't had even one dose the question needs to asked, why are millions of people lockdown, losing literally billions of dollars in salary & super, to protect people who won't try to protect themselves!?? At what point do we say "You've had your chance to get the shot, you've not taken it, so you're on your own! Good luck!" because I refuse to believe someone who is over 70 has not had a chance to get both vaccinations by now.
But anyways... if people in their 70's & 80's haven't had even one dose the question needs to asked, why are millions of people lockdown, losing literally billions of dollars in salary & super, to protect people who won't try to protect themselves!?? At what point do we say "You've had your chance to get the shot, you've not taken it, so you're on your own! Good luck!" because I refuse to believe someone who is over 70 has not had a chance to get both vaccinations by now.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
12 Posts
1,218 new cases in New Sick Wales today, completely skipping the 1100's...The genie is well and truly out of the bottle, but of the 6 new deaths, all over 70, 4 unvaccinated, and two with only one dose. Now that makes me wonder, as I'm in my 30's having my second dose this arvo - though I would have preferred to not have them at all, that's not an option if I want to get back to work the way McGoose is carrying on...
But anyways... if people in their 70's & 80's haven't had even one dose the question needs to asked, why are millions of people lockdown, losing literally billions of dollars in salary & super, to protect people who won't try to protect themselves!?? At what point do we say "You've had your chance to get the shot, you've not taken it, so you're on your own! Good luck!" because I refuse to believe someone who is over 70 has not had a chance to get both vaccinations by now.
But anyways... if people in their 70's & 80's haven't had even one dose the question needs to asked, why are millions of people lockdown, losing literally billions of dollars in salary & super, to protect people who won't try to protect themselves!?? At what point do we say "You've had your chance to get the shot, you've not taken it, so you're on your own! Good luck!" because I refuse to believe someone who is over 70 has not had a chance to get both vaccinations by now.
