In online forums like the Aged Care Worker Support Group on Facebook, frustrations often spill over into candid discussions about workplace fairness. Recent threads have highlighted complaints of managerial favouritism in shift rostering, where workers allege that managers give the best shifts, such as daytime hours, weekends off or consistent rosters, to personal friends, long-term allies, or staff who share similar cultural or ethnic backgrounds.
Some posters, particularly Australian-born workers, describe this as discriminatory treatment against them, with comments accusing managers of bias that disadvantages white staff. One typical post read, “I’m so sick of this. Certain groups get all the good shifts while white Aussies are left with the scraps. It’s straight-out discrimination against us.”
These grievances spark heated debates, including claims of “reverse racism” towards white Australians, alongside calls to report issues to unions or Fair Work Australia.
While these anecdotes highlight real tensions and feelings of exclusion, research and data reveal a more layered picture. Australia’s aged care sector suffers chronic staff shortages and relies on a highly diverse workforce, including many migrant workers who face their own significant challenges.
Perceptions of favouritism often arise from competition for desirable shifts, sometimes influenced by personal connections, cultural affinities or shared ethnicity. However, evidence shows unfair treatment flows in multiple directions, affecting different groups through bullying, resident hostility or unequal workloads. This article explores these dynamics, drawing on reports, surveys and expert insights for a balanced perspective.
Australia’s aged care system is under enormous pressure, with projections requiring up to 400,000 additional workers by 2050. Migrant workers are vital, making up around 40–51% of the direct care workforce in residential facilities.
Many come from India, the Philippines, Nepal and China, often in low-paid, casual roles as personal care assistants or nurses. The 2021 Census showed a 39% increase in residential care employment from 2014 to 2024, reaching 301,000 workers, with women comprising 83%.
This diversity provides strengths, such as multilingual staff better serving residents from similar backgrounds, but it also creates vulnerabilities.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (2021) identified inadequate staffing, skill mix and training as core problems driving substandard care, recommending reforms like mandatory care minutes and improved workforce planning. Initiatives such as the Aged Care Industry Labour Agreement have under-delivered, with most visas going to workers already in Australia.
Forum discussions frequently focus on rostering inequities. “As soon as certain managers are in charge, they look after their own mates or people from the same country. It happens far too often, and white staff miss out.” This echoes wider workplace trends in Australia.
A 2018–19 report found nearly half of employees perceive favouritism, sometimes linked to personal ties, shared cultural backgrounds or ethnicity, resulting in unequal access to preferred shifts or overtime.
Some workers explicitly frame this as racism against white Australians, claiming they are becoming disadvantaged in multicultural teams. Surveys reflect this sentiment. A 2018 national study found 10% of reported racism incidents involved white victims, often in employment settings, while a 2021 poll of Australian men showed one in three agreeing that “white people are victims these days”.
Online anecdotes describe teams becoming heavily skewed towards one cultural group under certain managers, intensifying resentment over “good” shifts consistently going to insiders.
Experts note that such favouritism can stem from a mix of factors, including personal preference, cultural familiarity that supports quick trust and communication in high-stress roles, unconscious bias, or clique behaviour, rather than solely ethnic prejudice. In aged care’s shortage-hit environment, these perceptions are heightened, yet data indicates unfair treatment impacts staff across backgrounds in varied ways.
Experts describe bullying and discriminatory practices in aged care as longstanding issues, often normalised as “part of the job”. Racism and prejudice manifest in different forms.
Some white Australian workers report feeling sidelined by ethnic-based favouritism in rostering, while migrant staff, particularly women from Asian or African backgrounds, frequently encounter racial microaggressions, assumptions about competence, heavier workloads, undesirable shifts, or overt hostility from residents, sometimes racially charged.
Studies of Nepalese, Filipino and other migrant care workers document exclusion and unequal rostering preferences compared to longer-established colleagues. During COVID-19, Asian-background staff faced intensified resident prejudice. Conversely, forums and surveys capture white workers’ experiences of perceived anti-white bias in multicultural management structures.
Broader statistics show one in five Australians experienced racial discrimination in the past year, with impacts felt across groups. Migrants are disproportionately affected in some contexts, but not exclusively. Bullying, defined by Fair Work as repeated unreasonable behaviour that risks health and safety, often overlaps with these complaints. Fair Work Commission cases distinguish legitimate management action from bullying, but valid claims from any background can lead to investigations.
The Royal Commission advocated reforms including better training, pay rises of up to 28.5%, and improved migration pathways. Unions such as the Health Services Union push for anti-bullying measures and equitable rostering. Practical steps shared in forums, including documenting incidents, escalating concerns to HR, or seeking mental health support, align with official advice.
Nuance is crucial. Favouritism in shift allocation is real and harmful, whether driven by personal connections, cultural alignment, ethnic ties or other biases. Complaints of racism against white staff deserve acknowledgment and investigation alongside the well-documented challenges faced by migrant workers. Dismissing either side oversimplifies a complex issue rooted in staffing pressures, diverse teams and human bias.
True progress requires mandatory training on fair practices and unconscious bias, transparent rostering policies, diverse leadership and open dialogue. In a sector essential to our ageing population, fairness is not zero-sum. By valuing all workers equally, regardless of background, and addressing prejudice in every direction, Australia can build a stronger, more sustainable aged care system that upholds dignity for residents and staff alike.
As an aged care leader these types of articles really cut to the core of what aged care is not about. I am growing increasingly impatient with those who feel that the race card can be flashed whenever they have a grievance. Rostering principles are not a perfect science and with the over arching demands of individual workers wanting to balance their individuals personal lives with professional requirements, rostering becomes even more difficult. Couple this with the requirements to meet Care Minutes, ensuring staff remain compliant in terms of contracted hours , OH&S requirements , massive sick leave requirements and demands on annul leave , with already depleted workforce numbers, leaders and roster teams are forced to give shifts to those willing to be flexible enough to pick up the shifts. This has nothing to do whatsoever with race.
I have no doubts that some bias plays a role in rostering, but I am also confident that those willing to speak out , are the same staff unwilling to be flexible and transparent in their individual rostering requirements and if they are, they are so inflexible thst their rostering requests are impossible to fulfill.
Race has no place in aged care , given the diversity of the staff employed. As a white Anglo-Saxon Australian born manager, who has worked in health for almost 30 years, regardless of nationality, those who draw the race card I see, are the most inflexible.
It is disappointing that Australian aged-care needs so many more employees and the only people willing to step up and come into the industry come from nations such as India, China , Nepal and the Philippines because white Anglo-Saxon Australian born employees are either to difficult to deal with or are just not available.
The shifts are there , step up , take them in and let’s get back to what our core business is- solid gold standard outcomes for the elderly, most of whom are embarking on their final journey of life . This should be a beautiful experience , not one encapsulated in racial disgruntlement almost those who are caring for their needs .
On a final note a shout out to those whom on a daily basis take the difficult role of balancing care needs with staffing requirements, ensuring care minutes are addressed , sick leave is back filled , contracted hours are not broken and legislative requirements are met. To these people I say thank you . I also thank those willing to step up fulfilling vacancies and do the hard yards, regardless of your nationality which plays little in terms of the great care you provide to our elderly.