Comment by Barry Healy
The Public Sector Union leadership — after two years of inactivity followed by months tirelessly wearing down membership opposition to enterprise bargaining — has released the outcome of its recent round of pay discussions. It recommends that members accept a 4.9% increase, over two years, with productivity bargaining negotiated at departmental and workplace level.
There is provision for higher pay rises through negotiation within individual departments. The PSU claim was originally for 8% over 18 months.
The leadership is pleased with its work, but one activist, Phil Sandford of the Rank and File Alternative group, told 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ that it "reads like the write-up of an autopsy report". Sandford's reaction is shared by many members soured by the leadership's blatant manipulation of the members into grudging acceptance of the ACTU/ALP push for enterprise bargaining.
The material distributed to members skips the crucial issue of budget supplementation. Past experience has been that, without supplementation, pay rises automatically mean job cuts — the only measure of productivity that the government has.
A complicated arrangement has been arrived at, but not reported to members in writing, in which the first 2% rise will be 100% supplemented for the first year but only 50% supplemented the second year. Productivity savings will pay for the funding shortfall through a financial pooling arrangement across departments. Agencies cutting deals with employees will be released from the government's "efficiency dividend", which currently cuts budgets by 1.5% per year.
The following two pay rises will be supplemented, but clearly union delegates will need the skills of accountants to keep track of the benefits of their deals. As it stands, the agreement will not cover future inflation or compensate for previous "productivity" lost under the Accord.
Another omission is just how the new agency deals will be agreed. The draft says that negotiations will be between the PSU and management, but no mention is made of union members ratifying the outcomes.
Section 8.5 of the draft states that "where the majority of employees affected ... genuinely agree to the implementation of changes", the union will go along. PSU leaders no longer organise mass meetings, so agreement could presumably be measured by managers interviewing individuals.
Moreover, the employees who "genuinely agree" need only be those who are "affected" by proposed changes. That means that workers in a small area could claim that they are uniquely affected by a work change and h their boss. The PSU would have no right to do anything about it, but that "best practice" would pressure all employees.
The draft streamlines "Handling of Inefficiency in the APS". In one department, Social Security, management has been boasting that it will use these provisions to get rid of "the drongos and the dingoes". "Drongos" is DSS management-speak for workers not adapted to the new, lean and hungry workplace; "dingoes" are active unionists.
The open slather on established conditions and jobs that this agreement would unleash means that it should be opposed. However, the members' demoralisation, produced by their leaders' recent undemocratic behaviour, probably means that it will get through.
Paul Keating may then boast that public servants have fallen in with his plans, and he will be looking for their votes in the next federal election. When that is past, public servants will no doubt find that any small carrots contained in this agreement will be replaced by a very large stick.