Part Time and Casual Work Survey

A questionnaire looking at women employed in part time, a mix of part time/casual and casual positions was prepared by the Employment Standing Committee of the National Council of Women in New Zealand (NCWNZ) and distributed by members of the NCWNZ. A total of 611 completed surveys were received and the results from the three work categories have been compared. The group receiving a benefit has been analysed separately and where appropriate compared with the total group.

Analysis of Results

Work Categories

A part time employee was defined for the purposes of this survey as working less than 30 hours per week and 74% of respondents were in this group. 17% worked in a mix of part time/casual positions and the remaining 9% were employed in casual work. Casual workers were those employed on an hourly, daily or weekly basis without a commitment from either party to ongoing employment.

Beneficiary Group

Of the total sample, 111 respondents were receiving a benefit (18% of total replies) and of the 101 who provided details, almost 50% received either a domestic purposes benefit or a sickness/ invalid /disability benefit.

In the beneficiary group 62% were in part time work 24% were in, a mix of part time/casual work and 14% in casual work.

Although the numbers are small, there were a higher percentage of casual workers in this group.

Age Group, Ethnicity, and Location

Respondents fell into 6 age groups with the youngest under 21 (6 replies) and the oldest over 60 (88 replies). A further group of 9 did not answer the question. There were 24% in the 31-40 age group, 28% in the 41-50 age group and 26% in the 51-60 group and the distribution for the beneficiary group was similar.

Respondents were asked to self select their ethnicity group. 87% identified themselves as New Zealand Europeans with 5% Maori, and <1% as Pacific Island. The remaining groups were non NZ Europeans, Asian and those who defined themselves as "New Zealanders".

Location was defined by area such as a major city or rural area and a further question established which was the closest major city. The location of the respondents was well distributed throughout the country and among major and provincial cities and towns and rural areas.

The results indicate that replies were received from a wide range of age groups from throughout New Zealand. Cities, provincial towns and rural districts were all represented in the sample. However, it is clear that NZ Europeans were over represented in the sample and there was under representation of Maori, Pacific Islanders and Asians.

Education

The educational qualifications indicate that 42 % of the total sample had some tertiary education and 85% had passed School Certificate or a higher qualification. The corresponding figures for the beneficiary groups were 50% and 85%.

There was a high level of tertiary education in both the total and beneficiary groups. Within the beneficiary group, 10 respondents received a student benefit or allowance but it is uncertain whether this might have influenced the higher incidence of tertiary education this group.

Household Details

74% of the total respondents were couples and of these, 57% had dependants living with them. 21% were single and 44 % had dependants in their household.

In the beneficiary group, 50% were single and 64% of these had dependants living with them. The remaining respondents were living with flatmates, parents, extended family or boarders.

The number of people living in a couple relationship indicates that these respondents are less likely to be the sole income earner. This is supported by the results which show that nearly 80% of the sample had more than one income in the household.

Among the beneficiary group there were a higher number of single people and these were more likely to have dependants.

Work Hours and Pay

The hours worked in a week varied from 5 - 35+. 44% of the total respondents worked more than 20 hours per week. When the work categories were examined, the results showed 46% of these were in the part time work category, 45% were in a mix of part time/casual work and 19% were casual workers working more than 20 hours. A similar pattern emerged for the beneficiary group with 38% working over 20 hours. A number of respondents worked in several jobs with 29% having more than one job and 4% more than 3 jobs.

A net weekly wage of $200 or less was earned by 61% of the total sample; 58% of part timers, 68% of those in a mix of part time/casual work and 82% of casual workers. Only 18% of the beneficiary group earned over $200.

A part time employee was defined for this survey as working less than 30 hours per week but obviously a number of respondents worked in excess of that. A possible explanation is that these people held more than one position. Those in casual jobs worked the least hours in both groups and as expected earned the least.

Beneficiaries are limited as to the amount they may earn before their benefit is abated and this was reflected in the small number who earned more than $200 per week.

Work Sector and type

The education and health sectors employed more than half of the respondents. Analysis of the type of work undertaken by the total sample indicated that: 26% worked in the clerical/reception area; 15% in teaching or tutoring positions; 10% cooking or cleaning; 7% nursing and 7% in management and administration. A further 9% described their work as professional. These percentages are of all the work types recorded by the respondents including those people with several jobs, often of different types. (Result details not shown)

Although the respondents worked in a wide range of occupations, the health and education sectors predominated and this did not necessarily translate to professional positions as teachers or nurses.

Work Conditions

32% of the total sample answered that they had little or no opportunity to negotiate their work conditions (36% for beneficiary group). For those in part time work this was 25% (35% of beneficiary group), 49% of those in a mix of part time/casual work (25% for beneficiary group) and 65% in casual work (60% for beneficiary group). The percentages are of those who answered the question.

Sick Leave was paid for 88% of part time workers, 69% of those in a mix of part time/casual work and 33% of casual workers. Paid holiday leave was provided for 90% of part timers, 77% of those in a mix of part time/casual work and 55% of casual workers Bereavement leave was available to 83% of part time workers, 59% of the part time/casual workers and 21 % of casual workers.

Only 45% answered the question about parental leave and of these only 34% said it was available.

The results show that part time workers have better working conditions than those in a mix of part time/casual work or casual work. Casual workers were the most disadvantaged with two thirds having little or no opportunity to negotiate their conditions.

There was a poor response to the question on parental leave and some clearly thought it wasn't applicable if the respondent did not require parental leave. Therefore responses to this question could have been influenced by the age of the sample and is not a true indication of whether leave was available in a particular job if requested.

Job Satisfaction

Respondents were asked if they considered their work place family friendly and 93% answered positively with over half making further comments. The majority of comments were positive and included: flexible hours, the ability to job share and a supportive and friendly environment with some allowing family visits and leave for a sick child. Only 5% of comments were negative and these included, lack of flexibility, lack of support and a perceived need for improvement.

Part time, casual work or a mix of the two was the preferred choice of 89% of the total sample and 82% of those on a benefit.

Further comments were made by 46% of the respondents and of these 54% had only positive comments to make, 26% made both positive and negative comments and 20% raised negative issues. Negative comments were not greater for casual workers.

The positive comments were similar to those made in conjunction with the question about family friendly work places and included such statements as: ideal with children/family, best of both worlds, provides flexibility, allows time for other activities.

Almost half of the respondents who made comments included reference to the disadvantages of part time or casual work. The most common problems were: feelings of exploitation when expected to work extra unpaid hours, being made to feel dispensable, poor conditions and few pay rises, stress due to juggling low pay and work hours, being "out of the loop" and difficulties keeping up knowledge.

Casual workers, in particular, mentioned the problem of irregular work hours and therefore income. Some people found covering school holidays a problem and others commented that it was sometimes difficult to find suitable part time work.

Practically all the women found their work place to be family friendly and this was backed up by positive comments. The results indicate that the group of women sampled preferred part time, a mix of part time/casual or casual work with very few seeking a full time position.

The comments made reflected the age differences with older respondents enjoying the freedom that shorter working hours provide and they were often pleased to have a job. The younger women, particularly those with children, often chose not to work full time because of family commitments. A number commented that family time was a high priority and a reason for working fewer hours.

Conclusions

Whilst the survey has produced some interesting results it cannot be taken as representative of the population as NZ Europeans are over represented and Maori, Pacific Islanders and Asians are under represented. The sample is also noted to be highly educated with over 40% having some form of post secondary school education.

However the results do confirm what we already suspected, that part time workers have better conditions of employment than those in casual work. A number who failed to answer the questions regarding employment conditions and this suggests that these people are poorly informed as to their work conditions and entitlements. The lowest response was to a question about parental leave but this may be a reflection on the age of the respondents and therefore seeing it as not applicable and being unaware if the position allowed for parental leave. There were no significant differences in the responses from the beneficiary group.

The respondents receiving a benefit numbered almost a fifth of the total responses. The fact that they had a higher level of tertiary education than the total sample was unexpected. There was a higher percentage in casual work and half were single and more likely to have dependants living with them. The beneficiary group worked slightly fewer hours than the total group and earned significantly less per week.

NCWNZ was particularly interested to uncover whether women undertook part time or casual work by choice. The results showed that this was the case for a high percentage of respondents in all groups. While the results are interesting they cannot be regarded as definitive as the sample is skewed. Also the nature of the sample would tend to indicate that many of the respondents were not the main income earner in the household and working less hours suited their lifestyle or family situation.

It is encouraging that so many of the respondents found their place of work sympathetic to the needs of the family and their employers generally supportive. However in the final comments made by 46% of the respondents, almost half included negative issues associated with part time or casual work. It appeared that a number of women found it stressful juggling a job and family commitments, often in association with poor pay and irregular hours.

The survey results were analysed by Jan Nelson.
The report was prepared by Jan Nelson and Barbara Glenie, August 2002.
Figures are available in The Circular, no. 457 October 2002.