Work-ethic Costs Economy $b's

Many Australians are willing to foot the $160 million welfare bill just on the principle of work-ethics.

Not surprisingly, consideration of a Universal Basic Income spells nothing other than 'bludger' because the government has spent many a decade programming exactly that concept into the general populace. But, what is the economic cost of our high work-ethics?

In most industries, the norm is to work very long hours, but according to new studies working more very seldom produces better results. Working more has, not only reduced productivity in the workplace, but it has also greatly impacted our general health and well-being.

Here we are worrying people will work less if we guarantee a basic income, and the reality of the situation is that Australians are presently working too much, and it is costing all of us. In reality, we need people who are feeling sick to stay home when they should be staying home and not feeling forced to work because they absolutely have to earn that money, or out of fear of losing their jobs if they actually take a sick day.

Pathology Awareness Australia (PAA) commissioned a report from the Centre for International Economics which called this pattern 'presenteeism'. It is estimated presenteeism costs the Australian economy $34 billion a year through lost productivity.

John Crothers, the chair of PAA, suggested "Yes, you've got a deadline to hit — but you want to do that in the understanding that your body's in a position to be able to do that effectively, and not underperforming and not spreading something that might actually be contagious". Mr Crothers also suggested, while employers and workers might think they are doing the right thing, they risked infecting colleagues and lowering overall workplace productivity.

Medibank Private conducted a study which further concludes: A contagion spread by a single ill worker can impose health costs on a company, which can be several times higher than the direct cost of absenteeism of the specific worker.

In fact, presenteeism in our schools accounts for nearly all childhood outbreaks of Chicken Pox, Conjunctivitis, Gastroenteritis, Glandular Fever, Hepatitis A, Impetigo, Influenza, Measles, Meningococcal Disease, Mumps, Ringworm, Slapped Cheek and Whooping Cough as well as infestations of Head Lice and Scabies.

Medibank Private suggests stress in the workplace is a growing concern for both employers and employees. Whilst a manageable level of stress is seen as a motivating force, further stress can cause performance to rapidly deteriorate. PAA further suggests prevention of strss causing chest pain had the potential to save the economy $167 million a year.

Long work hours and few vacations are also contributing factors to depression. Researchers peg the cost of depression to U.S. companies at $35 million a year. Presenteeism can also contribute to a negative workplace culture. When staff are forced to be in the office regardless of their circumstances, low morale and employee resentment increase. A tense work environment means a lot more people are calling in sick when they’re okay.

Combine all these health complications with the fact there’s currently 19 applicants for every job, up from 10 applicants per job in 2014, and the obvious solution is for people to be able to choose to work less, to free up more positions for those seeking jobs who are currently being excluded from the labor market.

Through the elimination of the poverty trap thanks to basic income, this would mean that anyone choosing not to work  —  instead opting to just live off basic income  —  would be earning less than those choosing to work for additional income. This could not only decrease unemployment and increase productivity, but simultaneously fix the disincentive to take a job by reducing and in many cases removing income support all together, irrespective of the stability of employment.

Plus, the very ability for people to not need a job, makes it that much harder for employers to exploit employees with insufficient wages and poor working conditions. The ability to actually say “No”, means the empowerment of labor on an individual level — completely union free.

With the implementation of UBI, who then will the Government use as a policy tool to ensure a massive over-supply of labour designed to drive down wage growth and union membership?