Imagine answering desperate pleas for help, knowing you're undertrained, underpaid, and potentially making things worse. That's the reality for many Australian call center workers handling sensitive government inquiries. It's a system seemingly designed to prioritize profit over people, and it's leaving both employees and the public vulnerable.
Oliver*, working at an outsource call center in Perth, paints a stark picture: morale is so low, management resorts to desperate measures just to get people to show up. Think of it like dangling a shiny key in front of a donkey. In December, the privately-owned TSA Group ran a "12 days of giveaways" competition, offering over $3,000 in prizes to staff working the Centrelink phone lines. The catch? You had to attend every single scheduled shift, no exceptions for lateness or unscheduled absences.
"They do sausage sizzles and try to make it a fun place to distract you, but it’s pretty miserable," Oliver says. He highlights the emotional toll: "The stuff you have to deal with on the calls at our pay grade is pretty rough; issues like domestic violence." He argues that it's deeply unsettling that poorly trained and inexperienced staff are the first point of contact for these critical issues, all while earning "absolute peanuts."
Tens of thousands of Australians interact with government agencies daily, discussing highly sensitive topics like tax debts, pensions, aged care, and disability support. What they likely don't know is that they're often speaking to employees of private contractors, individuals who lack the comprehensive training, fair pay, decent working conditions, and robust public service support of their civil servant counterparts.
Guardian Australia spoke with more than a dozen call center workers across four private contractors: Probe Operations (owned by US private equity), Concentrix Services (Nasdaq-listed), Serco (a British multinational), and TSA Group. All have contracts with various government agencies. The common thread? A system they describe as prioritizing profit over worker well-being and delivering quality service. These private companies offer superficial incentives to boost attendance, but they fail to address the core problems: inadequate training and unacceptably low pay.
A TSA spokesperson defended their practices, stating that while the work can be demanding, "thousands of workers also enjoyed the benefits of working in the sector." They added, "Like many large companies around Australia we do provide team building, staff incentives and social activities to our team members to maintain and enhance our culture."
But here's where it gets controversial... Is a sausage sizzle really a substitute for proper training and a living wage when you're dealing with people's livelihoods?
Another employee at Probe Operations, which handles the government's aged care services phone line, described the "random bonuses" as bordering on the bizarre. "Occasionally they have seat bonuses – a lucky dip basically, turn up on a certain day and you go into a draw for a $200 bonus."
The employee elaborated on the negative impact: "Seeing someone get a $200 bonus for no reason other than turning up is actually a disincentive to even care, it made me feel resentment." They also pointed to the incredibly high attrition rate: "Every few weeks there is a new rollout of 10 to 15 people in my centre alone. From the start the training is minimal to nonexistent; they throw you in the deep end and it’s sink or swim.” Probe declined to comment.
Anne*, a former employee of Concentrix (which has contracts with Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office), remembers her resignation being met with surprising ease. "There was no problem with leaving as they are so used to it," she recalls. "They’re very accommodating, it’s just, ‘Thank you very much, here’s your separation certificate, it was nice to meet you.’"
Anne's training consisted of a "very casual talk fest with a few substandard modules," and teaching materials that referred to call center staff as "gamechangers." She resigned after just three weeks. "The stress of having to take calls from some of the most vulnerable people in this country, completely unprepared, was immense and I left feeling disgusted that the government of Australia could treat its citizens – both the workers and, particularly, the callers – with such disdain." She added, "We were all referred to as gamechangers but I’m still not sure what sort of game we were playing, or trying to change.” Concentrix did not respond to questions.
And this is the part most people miss... The extreme turnover rates in privatized call centers, documented in a tax ombudsman report, directly lead to a shortage of adequately skilled staff.
Emmanuel Josserand, a professor of management at Sydney Business School, argues that it's simply not feasible for an external company to deliver the same quality of service as an ATO-run call center at a lower cost while simultaneously generating a profit. "It’s economically not possible," Josserand states. "You have to do something to get the cost savings, so you put pressure on workers and you hire people who are less qualified."
Attempts by government agencies to reduce their reliance on external consultants and outsourced workers have stalled, despite initial efforts to bring skills back in-house. The ATO, for example, intends to reduce its outsourced work by a mere $500,000 this financial year – a figure so insignificant that the union initially suspected it was a typo, considering the agency's multi-billion-dollar annual operating budget.
A Serco employee, working on the national disability insurance scheme phone line, admits to struggling to answer basic questions despite nearly a year on the job. "I still have very little understanding due to the lack of support and retraining as they change the systems constantly," she says, emphasizing the potential consequences: "It’s so sad as we are talking to vulnerable families and these mistakes can cost lives."
A Serco spokesperson responded: "Our people are empowered to thrive and deliver their best work through support, flexibility and training, and we continue to partner closely with government to deliver high quality and efficient services, in line with contractual obligations."
Outsourced workers emphasize the stark contrast between their pay and training and that of their public servant counterparts, despite performing the same duties. Starting pay at outsource centers is around $52,800 per year, compared to over $72,000 for many public servants on the same phone lines.
One Probe worker has even filed a "same job, same pay" application with the Fair Work Commission, leveraging the Albanese government’s workplace reforms aimed at preventing employers from using labor hire to underpay workers compared to direct employees. Success in this case could fundamentally challenge the financial viability of many outsourced government arrangements.
The cost-cutting extends to essential equipment. Several workers report using cheap, uncomfortable headphones that fail to adequately block out noise, frustrating both the workers and the callers they're trying to assist.
Jack*, an experienced worker at Probe on the ATO phone lines, highlights the lack of proper training. He notes that "double jacking" (new employees listening in on experienced colleagues' calls) is standard practice at most call centers. "While there is classroom training at Probe, there is no double-jacking, and when I asked my manager if I could do it, I was consistently told there wasn’t enough staff with time to facilitate it," Jack explains. "Many new hires don’t have call centre experience and speak English as a second or third language, and are immediately put on the phones in a role that requires complex knowledge of tax law."
Another Probe worker on the ATO phone lines shares a disturbing observation: "It is a common occurrence to walk into a break room and to see someone breaking down crying."
*Names have been changed to protect identities.
The big question is: are we, as a society, comfortable with a system that potentially compromises the quality of service provided to vulnerable Australians in the name of cost savings? Is it ethical to prioritize profit margins over the well-being of both the workers and the citizens they serve? And what responsibility does the government have to ensure fair pay and adequate training for those handling these critical public services? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below. Have you had positive or negative experiences with outsourced government call centers? Do you believe the "same job, same pay" principle should apply in these situations?
