IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v27y2020i7p559-563.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Labour regulation reform and sectoral employment outcomes: a case study of public holiday penalty rate reductions in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Martin O’Brien
  • Raymond Markey

Abstract

In 2017 Australia’s central employment relations regulator determined a decrease to wage premiums (penalty rates) paid to minimum wage Retail and Hospitality industry employees on Sundays and public holidays. Employers claimed that these penalty rate cuts would stimulate greater employment levels and hours and reduce pressure on owner-managers to work on these days. In this paper, we test these claims for public holiday employment outcomes using a natural experiment setting, a unique survey of both employer and employee outcomes, and difference-in-differences modelling accounting for program non-compliance. Ultimately, we failed to establish any evidence for positive public holiday employment outcomes emanating from the penalty rate reduction. We discuss the potential reasons for this outcome, including the inadequate and flawed evidence presented in the penalty rate determination case, confounding factors associated with adjacent minimum wage rate determinations and weak income growth affecting consumer confidence and demand in Retail and Hospitality sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin O’Brien & Raymond Markey, 2020. "Labour regulation reform and sectoral employment outcomes: a case study of public holiday penalty rate reductions in Australia," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(7), pages 559-563, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:27:y:2020:i:7:p:559-563
    DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2019.1640857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13504851.2019.1640857
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13504851.2019.1640857?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:27:y:2020:i:7:p:559-563. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.