[Non Transport related] Qld reaches a new low!

[somebody]

I refer to the Public Service Commission's directive 8/12.

7 Ruling:
Where there are provisions for Employment Security or Contracting Out in an industrial
instrument, the Employment Security or Contracting Out provisions contained in the industrial
instrument do not apply.

So basically, change the rules within the life of the agreement because they don't feel like honouring the obligations of the govt.  That the obligations were entered into by Labor isn't really relevant.

Informed people verify the union's claim that nothing like this has happened before, even under Sir Joh.  Sir Joh was a rank amateur compared to Newman!

[ozbob]

I expect the unions and others will challenge this in the IRC.  And I expect that this directive will be dismissed.

[Mr X]

Newman doesn't like firing people but he has no choice. With the teachers, firies and ambos all demanding a raise, election promises to be financed a slack and under performing public service, something has gotta give. Perhaps he wouldn't have to do this if the previous Labor administration hadn't stuffed up so badly.

[ozbob]

--> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-03/employment-rules-under-challenge/4176230

[somebody]

--> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-03/employment-rules-under-challenge/4176230

Thanks for that link.  Seems to be having a bet each way - not forecasting anything really.

Newman doesn't like firing people

I don't think he dislikes it either.

I expect the unions and others will challenge this in the IRC.  And I expect that this directive will be dismissed.

Union officials I have spoken to aren't confident of that.  And even if it is dismissed, they can easily enact something saying the same thing, and I cannot see how that would be thrown out.  You never know what the High Court might do though.

[Mr X]

I don't think he dislikes it either.

Why would he like it? The uncertainty means that his government gets bad press and it makes him look dictatorial and heartless. Plus gives the union a reason to kick up a stink and do big, embarrassing rallies outside his office. It's also a free point to the opposition- "CanDo told the people of QLD he wouldn't fire public servants but he has fired 3,000 people! That's 3,000 working families who face months of uncertainty blah blah"

[somebody]

He IS dictatorial and heartless.

I didn't say that he likes it, but he just doesn't care.  Interesting career choice for him.

I guess that's my opinion but based on my observations, I have some confidence.

[Stillwater]

Traditionally, incoming governments slash and burn in their first year, after discovering a 'fiscal mess' that can be blamed on the outgoing government.  You have the opportunity of renouncing some promises that got you elected because 'the money isn't there and the bastards left us nothing'. Build up a warchest and announce money for electoral goodies in the third year, just before, or at, election time.  Works everytime.

[somebody]

Traditionally, incoming governments slash and burn in their first year, after discovering a 'fiscal mess' that can be blamed on the outgoing government.  You have the opportunity of renouncing some promises that got you elected because 'the money isn't there and the bastards left us nothing'. Build up a warchest and announce money for electoral goodies in the third year, just before, or at, election time.  Works everytime.

Irrespective of this topic, this government has taken that to a new level.

[Golliwog]

Traditionally, incoming governments slash and burn in their first year, after discovering a 'fiscal mess' that can be blamed on the outgoing government.  You have the opportunity of renouncing some promises that got you elected because 'the money isn't there and the bastards left us nothing'. Build up a warchest and announce money for electoral goodies in the third year, just before, or at, election time.  Works everytime.

Irrespective of this topic, this government has taken that to a new level.

Tell me about it! This is the latest: Shock as LNP government winds up iconic statewide cancer service BreastScreen

Claiming that everyone was thanking him for making the tough decisions and sacking 1000's of public servants was also a bit much.

[Gazza]

Its funny, I've kinda put up with the job cuts etc till now.

....But it's a f%cking joke when you get a government who have been in for not even 6 months throwing their weight around thinking they can somehow improve a successful program like Breastscreen by making a change like this. The guy is out of control!

I mean, LNP supporters are quite right to be fine with the job cuts etc, but they would clearly have to be one eyed and unreasonable to support this. I hope (quite rightly) it blows up in the governments face and they remember who they are actually governing for.

Ugh, so many things wrong with the idea. The whole notion of population screening is that you make sure everyone in the target group gets their reminders to get tested, and subsequently a real impact can be made.
If its being done at a local level, how do you keep track of everyone.
There's a reason it's done at the fed level in partnership with the states:
http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/

[curator49]

Each Govt Dept is being told to find savings but I think this has created a slash and burn mentality without any thought as to the consequences or subsequent ramifications further down the line. The people who are mainly being affected are those at the "coal face" and not always the managers and "back-room" pen pushers. I wonder how many of the jobs that have gone (currently suggested to be around 6,000 to 7,000) were actually temporary employees - that is they did not fill a permanent position. Some ten years ago, I was employed by the Government as a Temporary Employee to fill a short term need in a Dept. My first "term" was for 3 months and I had to sign a letter with a copy to be retained by myself and the other returned to the Departments HR. The letter I signed made it quite clear - my start date and my finish date as well as a number of conditions where I might be terminated earlier (mainly for disciplinary reasons). This letter also made it clear that my temporary employment might be extended. My term was subsequently extended for another 12 months (or thereabouts) and my contract did expire at the end of this second term. I was NOT SACKED from my job it just time expired. I WAS NEVER under any illusion that I had a permanent job it was TEMPORARY. Every time you are awarded a temporary contract or your contract is extended you are supposed to sign one of these letters.
However, I know that there are many Public Servants who have held "Temporary" positions for ten years or more. I would not suggest that that is their fault it is their managers and the Department concerned who should be seeking to employ a person in a new permanent position as it appears there must be a need for that position. Anyone filling a temporary position must expect to be terminated at any time when their temporary contract expires.

[Derwan]

I refer to the Public Service Commission's directive 8/12.

Single worst directive I have ever seen.

Effectively it's saying to public servants, "You have no job security and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it."

Rather than working fairly and within agreed rules, the government simply changes the rules to suit themselves.  Yes - this is a dictatorship.  There is simply no other way to describe it.

[Gazza]

I think its wrong to go moving the goalposts for people already covered by agreements.

But at the same time, why do so many government employees get job guarantees that people in the private sector don't?

[somebody]

I think its wrong to go moving the goalposts for people already covered by agreements.

But at the same time, why do so many government employees get job guarantees that people in the private sector don't?

Technically, the private sector is no different.  I'm sure that there are enterprise bargains in the private sector which include such clauses.

It's just quite rare for a public servant to be sacked, but by no means impossible or illegal.

[SurfRail]

I think its wrong to go moving the goalposts for people already covered by agreements.

But at the same time, why do so many government employees get job guarantees that people in the private sector don't?

It's in the public interest for the government of the day to not sack public servants or other advisors who deliver advice the government does not want to hear because it interferes with their agenda (eg scrapping the Sentencing Council because it did not recommend mandatory sentencing), or more generally for public servants to be a political bargaining chip.

Both flavours of politics are guilty of stacking the PS at all levels with favourite advisors.  Newman had a chance to stop the practice and start a move back to a proper, politically non-aligned PS but he has chosen not to.

[Golliwog]

IMO, whether or not they have a job security clause or not is a moot point, what is disgraceful on the governments part is that it think it can just come along and remove that clause from all existing employment contracts by issuing an edict and no discussion with employees. If I don't like a particular part of my mobile phone contract, can I just send my service provider a letter saying that the part I don't like no longer applies?

[somebody]

I don't believe that about the CBA for a second.

And it doesn't happen in the private sector in the way described in the OP.  They would be sued.

[SurfRail]

Reality check, All CEO's and even further down the tree stack the upper ends of their organisation with their own people. Why, because they want people they can work with, but few would pick "Yes man". By work with I mean they don't have personality clashes, they are a known entity, they understand how each other thinks, they can be trusted to get the job done.

That is NOT how the public service is supposed to work.  Senior public servants are meant to survive governments.  That is how they retain their independence. 

Personally I'm not 100% against "jobs for the boys", because thats how these things work and hence the term Head Hunter, which means if they want person X, they get person X by appointment based on their previous efforts. No interviews, no exams, no pysc test. You take them out to dinner and explain why it would be good for them to join your business. As long as its not giving jobs to friends or rels based on relationship. Private sector can usually manage this, so should the govt PS.

You're dreaming if you think this is how public sector administration should work.  Jobs should be given based on ability, skill and experience.  Public servants are not there to be friends to the government, they are there to protect the best interest of the public.

What you are describing is "croynism" and is something both parties are quite guilty of doing.

I'm not sorry over the PS loosing their "job security" this comfort zone of almost near impossible to be sacked is in part why the PS has its bad reputation. At one stage in the past, the only way you could be sacked from the Comm Bank when owned by the feds was for stealing money, I'm sure things have changed. But yes no one would like the "Goal posts" to be moved, but this happens in the private sector for numerous reasons, change in govt policy, change in prices, change in CEO....

The government is not the private sector.  There is just no basis for comparison whatsoever.  In latter times, we have KPIs and related measures which can be beefed up.  There is no need to outright sack people, particularly in the specatacularly ham-fisted way it is being done, and especially when the government has to do virtually nothing to get back into the black in 2 years time (ie same as when the ALP was going to deliver it).

[somebody]

Reality check, All CEO's and even further down the tree stack the upper ends of their organisation with their own people. Why, because they want people they can work with, but few would pick "Yes man". By work with I mean they don't have personality clashes, they are a known entity, they understand how each other thinks, they can be trusted to get the job done.

That is NOT how the public service is supposed to work.  Senior public servants are meant to survive governments.  That is how they retain their independence. 

That's the Westminster system.  It hasn't worked like that in NSW at least for about two decades.  Not sure about other places, but I believe most places went against that notion.  Watch "Yes, Minister" which parodied it!

[SurfRail]

That's the Westminster system.  It hasn't worked like that in NSW at least for about two decades.  Not sure about other places, but I believe most places went against that notion.  Watch "Yes, Minister" which parodied it!

These days it tends not to happen, I agree.  Then again the standard of public discourse these days is very low, particularly between political parties and the electorate.  I'm not entirely sure these things are unrelated.

[somebody]

I don't remember it being better in the days with Westminster system up to D-G level.  Perhaps someone older might have an opinion.

[somebody]

Not sure how that is an answer to me except the first paragraph.

That entire post is irrelevant to the issue raised in the OP.

EDIT: Does it need to be explained why?  Because the Directive is covering public service officers, not confined to SES positions.  I don't think it even includes them.

[SurfRail]

^ I'm certainly not saying rtt_rules is wrong in practice, but it's very naive to think that the public service works better just because the politicians are good mates with the DGs and senior officials and can get on.  Governments need to operate in the public interest and that means avoiding, as far as possible, the risk of corruption or favoritism. 

Corporate governance is a different kettle of fish since executives are only answerable to their shareholders (ie profit) and not to the general public (ie public policy).  The comparison falls down there.

[somebody]

Fairly sure that the number of permanent public servants who have taken a forced redundancy is zero - so far.  Office Of Climate Change people have 4 months from it being dissolved to find another job or they will receive a forced redundancy.  I expect they will be the first.

[Golliwog]

Fairly sure that the number of permanent public servants who have taken a forced redundancy is zero - so far.  Office Of Climate Change people have 4 months from it being dissolved to find another job or they will receive a forced redundancy.  I expect they will be the first.

As I understand it, that is going to be the process for all surplus public servants.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Questions, guilt plague public service survivors

Questions, guilt plague public service survivors
August 8, 2012 - 1:00AM

It was the ordinary, unassuming desk of a pleasant, hard-working 40-something public servant. Nothing special. It used to have a photo of his family. Now the photo was gone and so was he. In fact, looking around, it's hard not to notice the number of empty desks. All neat and tidy.

Walk around the floor. It used to have the noise of work, knowledge. Like a morgue now, someone says.

My colleague's job, like a lot of others, has been split and scattered. People are scrambling to cover growing organisational holes. Decades of corporate knowledge are gone.

And for those who are left – the survivors – there's not a lot of joy. No one believes that this is the end.

There is only one discussion: have you heard?; what jobs are going?; what's happening in your area? Lots of questions but no real answers.

Mostly the anticipated cuts in the sector are at the middle level, where arguments, policy and projects are won and lost. If the Government needs to convince anyone of the renewal journey it is those in the lower part of the food chain – those who are feeling the brunt of the cuts; those whom the government is saying do not add value; are not valued; who Queenslanders are happy to see sacked. One jokes that the only way to make sure your job is safe is to be adopted by a Minister – but it doesn't get many laughs. The underlying tinge of bitterness is unmistakeable. It will take a very long time to rebuild the trust part of this equation.

In the Department of Transport and Main Roads, where the cuts have been the most savage, there is no morale. What was left crashed with the Director General's letter of indifference. The jobs, and fate of two thousand of his employees, did not even rate a mention. There are reports of increasing absenteeism, but for those there, a palpable sense of anger. The complaint about a lack of information is widespread.

There's outspoken fury at the Premier's claims public servants are leaking. "Most of the leaks and 'informed' stories have been so blatantly anti-public service that they could only have come from executive government. Nothing like seeing your bosses dumping on you in public," observes one.

"Do they know what this 'wait and see' is doing to people?" another middle level public servant wants to know. "Stress is through the roof, many are breaking down - their lives are turned upside down. Don't they give a damn?" And so the anger ferments.

In Education House in Mary Street, the staff compare notes on who has gone, who is going and who might be next. One staffer adds to the conversation by stating, "I can't afford to lose my job," and is met by 10 pairs of glaring eyes. Colleagues who used to work together on projects are now competing for a job.

Some staff are clinging on to the hope that this might be the end of the cuts. Those who are realistic know no-one is safe. The nice man in his thirties, liked by everyone, says while he's sad to be going, at least he knows his fate and can plan ahead. An LNP supporter had been claiming her role in the election of a local LNP member, reminding everyone that this government has a mandate. But the glee she has been showing is reducing by the day as her colleagues receive a letter that begins with "I am writing to you with relation to your employment status..."

Outside the building and in the streets surrounding Education House the usual morning tea haunts are just that – haunted – their owners wondering which of the coffee spots will close first.

Over in Justice and Attorney Generals, in the top end of George Street, there is speculation between 500–550 jobs will go.

The human service agencies - those dealing with the tough areas of child safety, homelessness, domestic violence - seem to take the cuts the hardest. In what remains of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services some are waiting for their letters: the ones that offer you a job or not, a payout or not.  Others are pretending it doesn't hurt to have their careers wound back 10 years, having to report to people they used to outrank. How can you complain? If you've got a job you're one of the lucky ones. Not like those five directors who are all going to get to apply for one position.

The optimists are steadfastly declaring they'll manage. They've worked out their payout on the online calculator now available on the whole-of-government intranet, because there aren't enough people to handle the requests. The communication branch, once 100-strong with a general manager, is soon to come down to 30 under a director. Only, there's about 45 full-time equivalents on the books, so there's at least 15 humans to lose their jobs. The areas of the department that deal with homelessness, seniors and young people have been hacked back. Now that the director-level positions have been reduced across the department, it's expected that the managers and those below will be next. Senior management is sacrificing the lower-ranked, working on the premise that when the pogrom ends, at least if you've hung on to some of your more senior and experienced staff, you'll have something to build on.

Anyone thanking Newman for this has no understanding of the long-term cost.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/questions-guilt-plague-public-service-survivors-20120807-23s5d.html

[somebody]

The watcher knows a lot.

[Derwan]

Fairly sure that the number of permanent public servants who have taken a forced redundancy is zero - so far.  Office Of Climate Change people have 4 months from it being dissolved to find another job or they will receive a forced redundancy.  I expect they will be the first.

As I understand it, that is going to be the process for all surplus public servants.

This is correct.  From Directive 6/12:

Where an employee has been an employee requiring placement for four (4) months, their department, together with PSC, will conduct a review to determine whether continuing efforts to secure a permanent placement for the employee remains appropriate. Where the review determines that reasonable placement efforts have been undertaken and it is not appropriate to continue these efforts, the retrenchment provisions of the directive relating to early retirement, retrenchment and redundancy will apply.

Basically the following will occur:

1.  Position is no longer required.  Employee will be offered a volunteer redundancy which entitles the employee to an "incentive" payment of 12 weeks pay (plus the usual severance based on their years of service).

2.  If the employee chooses not to take the offer, they will remain employed for 4 months during which time a suitable placement will be sought.

3.  If no suitable placement is found, employee will be retrenched and miss out on the incentive payment, but will still receive the severance payment.

[somebody]

I expect the unions and others will challenge this in the IRC.  And I expect that this directive will be dismissed.

Well it's just gotten somewhat harder.  The directive has been enshrined in law now: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/axing-of-job-security-clauses-to-be-enshrined-in-law-20120823-24ofy.html

[ozbob]

Indeed, that is why the Government legislated, they knew it would not stand up otherwise.

They win for now.

I expect it will be one of the first pieces of legislation changed after the next election ...

[Derwan]

When the law doesn't allow them to get what they want, what do they do?  Change the law!

That's the dictatorship that we live in.

[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.

[somebody]

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.

That is a very idealistic point of view.

[Gazza]

I would be nice though, would stop a lot of arguments.

[ozbob]

A public service without some employment guarantee just ends up as a team of political yes people.

Without permanency, advice and counsel is given on the basis of survival rather than merit.

[Gazza]

But departments always seem to have been yes people regardless....Judging by transport outcomes anyway.

[somebody]

But departments always seem to have been yes people regardless....Judging by transport outcomes anyway.

So what are you saying?  Adopt the US model where a significant portion of the management team changes with the government?

Be nice if we could have a Translink,BC model with a large amount of independence.  But that isn't really the be all and end all.

[Gazza]

So what are you saying?  Adopt the US model where a significant portion of the management team changes with the government?

Nah.

Be nice if we could have a Translink,BC model with a large amount of independence.  But that isn't really the be all and end all.

I'm sure Translink BC would be free to sack staff, because of this independence, right?

[somebody]

So what are you saying?  Adopt the US model where a significant portion of the management team changes with the government?

Nah.

Why post if you aren't saying anything?

Be nice if we could have a Translink,BC model with a large amount of independence.  But that isn't really the be all and end all.

I'm sure Translink BC would be free to sack staff, because of this independence, right?

Not sure but I doubt it very different to the public sector here.