Comments by "Old Bloke" (@oldbloke204) on "'Complicated': Labor’s same job, same pay aims to 'get rid of labour-hire'" video.

Interesting story. I worked in a place where labour hire was a big thing but built up gradually. In some ways it was good as any dead wood was sorted out and didn't come back whereas getting a permanent Union member out was virtually impossible no matter how useless or whatever else. On the other side of the coin it was as you said. People couldn't plan ahead much and you were screwed if you had commitments and the work dried up. It also meant that labour hire tended to be much more compliant or would put up with more simply because their incomes depended on it. Using labour hire is more about control, imo, although I have heard anecdotally that it has driven down wages in the mining industry, even remote, as labour hire companies bid for the contracts. Hardly surprising that employers went down this path though when I think back to some of the things I saw over the years. Good luck finding a decent job mate.
1
@binmcbin1890 The balance will always swing though. The site I worked at was heavily unionized and I worked with some complete losers who, ironically, were protected by my union fees. In the nearly 2 decades I was there I never needed to access the union "benefits" that my fees paid for. I get the argument, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but the narrative and outcomes are usually driven by the losers and tossers who know how to game the system and protect their own life choices. I'm not surprised that employers use labour hire even though I don't necessarily like the outcomes.
1