[Non Transport related] Qld reaches a new low!

[Gazza]

Why post if you aren't saying anything?

Why come up with a random conclusion about the USA?

[somebody]

Why post if you aren't saying anything?

Why come up with a random conclusion about the USA?

That is the diametrically opposite model.

[Gazza]

Why post if you aren't saying anything?

Why come up with a random conclusion about the USA?

That is the diametrically opposite model.

Why does it have to be diametrically opposite?

Look, I can't be bothered rebutting arguments I never made, Simon.

[Golliwog]

Public service should have no more and no less job security than any other employed person in Australia.  They should also be paid same as private sector for similar type/level of work/experience.

I could live with this if the departments were more independent of the politicians than they usually are, or potentially if that's what the government was even offering. Instead, they're removing the job security clauses and also not wanting to give people a decent pay rise to equal their private sector counterparts.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Public servant bill an abuse of power

...  An equally alarming element lies in the content of the Bill, which removes job security for all public sector employees except police.

This destroys the 160-year-old spirit of a Westminster public service and suggests the Newman Government understands neither history nor public administration.

Permanency of employment was set down as a core principle in the landmark Northcote-Trevelyan Report in 1853, designed to create a professional civil service in which workers could offer frank advice to political masters without fear or favour ...

... The benefit of permanency was created as compensation for the withdrawal of other rights, such as the liberty to speak publicly on political issues.

It has stood all Westminster civil services in good stead for one and a half centuries, but has now been removed in Queensland for the spurious reason of "providing an affordable public service for Queensland" ...

[Jonno]

Public service should have no more and no less job security than any other employed person in Australia.  They should also be paid same as private sector for similar type/level of work/experience.

I could live with this if the departments were more independent of the politicians than they usually are, or potentially if that's what the government was even offering. Instead, they're removing the job security clauses and also not wanting to give people a decent pay rise to equal their private sector counterparts.

+1

[ozbob]

I would be a little circumspect of that article.  It is a response to yesterdays meltdown by the political elite.  Commonly known as a diversion ...

[somebody]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/phantom-q-health-employees-paid-by-the-state-to-do-nothing/story-e6freoof-1226461145032

And we wonder why...

Article about nothing.  It's actually been discussed above in this very thread.  When a permanent staff member's position is removed they have 4 months to find another job.  It's similar in NSW and I'm sure in most of the world where the Westminster system lives.

[somebody]

Yet some of those roles have been hanging around since 2007?

What are you referring to?

[somebody]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/phantom-q-health-employees-paid-by-the-state-to-do-nothing/story-e6freoof-1226461145032

And we wonder why...

Article about nothing.  It's actually been discussed above in this very thread.  When a permanent staff member's position is removed they have 4 months to find another job.  It's similar in NSW and I'm sure in most of the world where the Westminster system lives.

Further to this, for the first 12 weeks of the 4 months which you have to find a new job, your incentive payment is reduced by 1 week.  If you choose not to take the "voluntary" redundancy, you are actually showing up for 13 weeks to receive 5 weeks pay if you aren't actually placed in a job.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Brisbane's liveability on the slide: report

[Derwan]

Further to this, for the first 12 weeks of the 4 months which you have to find a new job, your incentive payment is reduced by 1 week.  If you choose not to take the "voluntary" redundancy, you are actually showing up for 13 weeks to receive 5 weeks pay if you aren't actually placed in a job.

Not quite right Simon.  If you choose not to accept the redundancy, you forego the incentive altogether.

The government is now ignoring the unions and will ballot public servants directly.  The union is recommending we vote no, but people might be sick of it all and just want their pay rise.

[somebody]

Further to this, for the first 12 weeks of the 4 months which you have to find a new job, your incentive payment is reduced by 1 week.  If you choose not to take the "voluntary" redundancy, you are actually showing up for 13 weeks to receive 5 weeks pay if you aren't actually placed in a job.

Not quite right Simon.  If you choose not to accept the redundancy, you forego the incentive altogether.

The government is now ignoring the unions and will ballot public servants directly.  The union is recommending we vote no, but people might be sick of it all and just want their pay rise.

Your not allowed to change your mind later?  Hmm, I thought the directive (6/12?) had something in it covering that situation.

Regardless, the 4 months pay with normal tax would net out to less than the 12 weeks incentive payment with special tax.

[Ace]

Sick leave isn't paid out... just long service leave and annual leave.

[Golliwog]

Of the actual 11,000 or so to finish up (its not 14,000 people, just 11,000 positions, rest are unfilled or to be transfered asI understand it), I'd be highly surprised if 5,000 don't have a job by the end of the year. A few more thousand by Q2 next year. So for many, their payouts will be money off the house, a new car, TV etc. Watch Harvey Norman's share price rise.

Newman's version of Rudd's $900 stimulus package?

Yes, I don't hear many saying that there shouldn't be any cuts to the PS at all, but there are many yelling and screaming about the way in which he's gone about it (the quantity of cuts, the time frame in which is was done and the directive removing working conditions). Personally, I think they've cut too many staff as I know a few people across different departments and they're all telling me it's not just picking up the slack, but there's now things that physically take longer or can't be done at all due to being short staffed. Granted, some of these things don't need to be done by the government and the PS, but some do.

[Derwan]

Your not allowed to change your mind later?  Hmm, I thought the directive (6/12?) had something in it covering that situation.

From 6.2 in Directive 6/12:

(b) Where an employee is unable to be placed into an alternative permanent role following workplace change, the department must advise the employee in writing that the employee has been designated as an employee requiring placement and provide the employee with two weeks to decide between two courses of action:

(i) Accept a voluntary redundancy (in accordance with the directive relating to early retirement, redundancy and retrenchment); or
(ii) Pursue transfer (and/or re‐deployment) opportunities.

(c) Where an employee declines a voluntary redundancy under clause 6.2(b)(i), no further voluntary redundancies will be offered.

Administrator, 15years experience $98k after tax termination payment. Then I assume there is LSL, AL, SL etc etc as well...If this is true, then there needs to be one more directive, this is the last time such large BS payments are made on redundency, no wonder the state is Fooked. The state doesn't have the income levels to maintain our PS and it costs us an arm and leg to let them go.

I assume the Adminstrator was on around $60-70kpa.

Join the rest of the world, sick leave is a privillge that is paid when you are geniunely sick. it is neither paid out in lieu or on termination. 6mths max payout + AL + LSL is what I would have expected to be more inline with most private sector employees.

As already pointed out, sick leave is not paid out.  If I was facing redundancy, I would be using as much SL as possible before my separation date.

That aside, for the example given is for an AO6.4.  This is a middle-management position, higher than many of the public servants who are being sacked.  Their weekly salary is 1,680.60, so their redundancy is made up of:

Incentive: 1,680.6 x 12 = 20,167.20
Redundancy: 1,680.6 x 2 x 15 = 50,418.00

Total Payout: 70,585.20 (before tax)

Anything above that is accrued leave balances.

It seems like a lot (again that's middle-management, not the average public servant), but when faced with the possibility of being unemployed for some time, I think I'd prefer to keep my job!

[WTN]

As much as anyone would prefer to keep their job, declining a redundancy really just means you could be retrenched any time between now and 4 months later, if a position can't be found (or the efforts have been exhausted). Given the sheer number of redundancies and the very limited number of vacancies, the chances of getting a transfer/redeployment are slim. I know of at least one person who has left because of this.

Are there any figures available on redundancies from each pay level? Most I know seem to be retiring managers at AO8 level (~$2k per week salary) and walking away with a year's salary ($100k+) because of their decades-long service.

[Derwan]

Are there any figures available on redundancies from each pay level? Most I know seem to be retiring managers at AO8 level (~$2k per week salary) and walking away with a year's salary ($100k+) because of their decades-long service.

With 12 weeks incentive, that leaves 40 weeks for a year's salary.  You get 2 weeks per year so as long as you've done 20 years FULL TIME and accept a redundancy, you'll get a year's GROSS salary.

You can see the salary rates here.  The very first table is for the AO stream (except Main Roads, who are on a different agreement).  L1 = AO1, L2 = AO2, etc.  Just go by the post 1/8/11 figures (columns H and N).

[WTN]

Actually I was talking about the number of people who are made redundant from each level, eg how many AO1s, AO2s, etc got made redundant, not the salaries.

[SurfRail]

^ Would it not have been easier and cheaper to just freeze recruitment for a bit and allow the normal natural attrition rate to capture whatever the required number of jobs?

I still disagree with this whole notion altogether because the public service is now more than ever likely to produce dodgy results, but would suspect that even if you wanted to arbitrarily "rightsize" the PS you would do so in the least aggressive manner.

It really is just ideology.  There is an excellent article about that here: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/is-this-evidencedbased-call-the-pollster-to-check-20120920-269er.html

[somebody]

Potentially they will also cut out some of their non value adding work and projects such as climate change department. Such luxuaries are no longer affordable.

Are you saying this because there is only "Long term weather variability, with a monotonic component"?

[somebody]

So because you don't know what it does it should be cut?  Hmm.

[Gazza]

So because you don't know what it does it should be cut?

Congratulations, you are now an LNP cabinet member 

[SurfRail]

I agree on the freeze bit, but what is PS turn over? It may have taken too long and not got the roles out required. The process should have been a 12mths downsizing which would help those leaving find alt employment.

How do we know the PS will produce lessor results? Its very rare the PS is found to have similar numbers to private sector would have for same job.Potentially they will also cut out some of their non value adding work and projects such as climate change department. Such luxuaries are no longer affordable.

Not so much idealogy, its about having a workforce you can afford. Currently a portion of these people are being paid with foreign money, this is not sustainable.

We can afford them, so yes it is purely ideology.  No recurrent borrowing is needed for ANYTHING done by the Queensland Government and once the disaster reconstruction of the last 3 years or so is dealt with, the budget goes back into the black with or without these austerity measures.  The only things borrowed for are major projects, which keep the economy ticking over and the need for which does not vanish just because we don't have cash.

The attrition rate is such that they would have likely reached their target in around 2 years I believe (something like 4-5% pa).

It really is a bunch of baloney.

[SurfRail]

You're using the Costello figures, which I have no interest in addressing given they have been thumped into irrelevance by several economists.

[somebody]

You're using the Costello figures, which I have no interest in addressing given they have been thumped into irrelevance by several economists.

Where's that like button!

I'm particularly inclined to ignore the forecasts "without changes to spending patterns".  That means building some new Gateway bridges and the like.  Perhaps that might happen with Mr Newman as premier.

[Gazza]

Do you borrow everytime you buy something more than basics for your house? If you keep the 34% number of 2005-06, it means the govt is running day to day expenses on Chinese money.

No it doesn't, because more infrastructure spending was paid for by borrowing, therefore the money that would have been spent on infrastructure could go towards day to day expenditure.

Why do you keep assuming its "Chinese" money?

[SurfRail]

ALP total spending was higher, therefore yes wait long enough and it will come back into the black based on a lot of healthy assumptions. LNP have done same, but removed X amount of spening so the budget will run back in the black a year sooner and much stronger although there is still alot of healthy assumptions, but you would say LNP forecast is more likely to true sooner and the debt level topped out lower.

Assuming the net effect of all those sackings isn't a massive economic slump, which is usually the case.

[Gazza]

It is NOT NORMAL for any govt, private sector or even private person to fund year on year its infrastructure on borrowed money. It is not sustainable.

Well obviously, but they only did it because of the GFC, and the disasters, and they didn't want to halt the building programme as a temporary thing.

It's not like they were going to do it forever, which is why the Costello report was so silly, because it assumed we'd just keep doing the same things until we hit $90 bil in debt, but that would mean having floods again and again, and it would mean continued GFC economic conditions, with no recovery, and it would mean building expensive projects over and over even though many are 'done' now (How many gateway upgrades and GC hospitals need to be built now...No more!)

Yeah no doubt we're in debt, but in reality the seriousness of the situation is somewhere between what LNP and ALP are saying. LNP are gonna make it sound as a bad as possible, and ALP are going to defend it to say its not all that bad.

[Derwan]

Actually I was talking about the number of people who are made redundant from each level, eg how many AO1s, AO2s, etc got made redundant, not the salaries.

I do the reports on actual redundancies for a number of departments serviced by Queensland Shared Services.  Obviously I'm not able to release unauthorised information, but from a very general observation on the numbers so far, it appears to be fairly evenly spread out between AO3 and AO8 - and even SO's.  There are fewer AO2's by comparison.  (It could be different for other departments.)

We're still in early days for the actual redundancies processed.  (Many have been announced, many employees haven't left yet, some are still deciding whether to take the redundancy.)