SA Budget 10-11 (Public service)

[oldfella]

I think the fact that there was a binding legal agreement that the Mr Foley was trying to break in his bull at a gate manner is a major factor in this --- interesting that the unions are, at this time, continuing their High Court action.

How do you know a polly is lying ==== is his mouth open.

[fish]

I think the fact that there was a binding legal agreement that the Mr Foley was trying to break in his bull at a gate manner is a major factor in this --- interesting that the unions are, at this time, continuing their High Court action.

Yep you have hit the nail on the head there oldfella - wrong to go back on a written agreement in the Public Service EBA.

Interesting also that the Union are still going ahead with the rally planned for this Thursday 9th June. It will be more like a victory celebration!

[GWW]

But I thought this Labor govt said that they were all about making "tough decisions" , now they've reversed another one. I for one, won't ever vote for them every again anyway, at least in the foreseeable future.

[southee]

But I thought this Labor govt said that they were all about making "tough decisions" , now they've reversed another one. I for one, won't ever vote for them every again anyway, at least in the foreseeable future.

Soft as butter......

[GWW]

Well we never know with the Liberals southee, they could come in and be even worse

[dedja]

Happy for the Government to relent on this one if they do in fact abolish tenure as has been suggested.

[mick]

The government was going to break an enterprise agreement, this would have been a dangerous precident. For many members of the PS this was a quite substantial pay cut, equivalent to one weeks wages for those who have been in the PS longer than 15 years. However leave loading for those not doing regular overtime is a nonsense and should be phased out with negotiation not through populist bully boy tactics.

It is interesting that the unions are still proceeding with their high court challenge to government cuts to entitlements even though the government has eventually caved in. There is an obvious lack of trust here.

[Ian]

However leave loading for those not doing regular overtime is a nonsense and should be phased out with negotiation not through populist bully boy tactics.

Mick, the leave loading was awarded years ago instead of a pay rise.
At the time it was agreed that instead of getting a pay rise on weekly wages it would be more benefit to have the whole years value of the rise payed as a loading over 4 weeks of annual leave because most people could do with a bit extra when on leave.

If it is ever taken away it would be no different to taking away a pay rise awarded to someone in the private sector 30 years ago.

[fish]

It is interesting that the unions are still proceeding with their high court challenge to government cuts to entitlements even though the government has eventually caved in. There is an obvious lack of trust here.

Yep a lot of trust has been lost over this.

In regard to the ongoing legal action this is from the PSA website.

The PSA has been campaigning against the 2010 Foley Budget which cut jobs and services and removed conditions of employment which had been negotiated and protected in Awards, Agreements and legislation.

Thousands of PSA members have spent the last eight months attending rallies at Parliament House and Electorate Offices conducting effective community campaigns, speaking and writing to Members of Parliament, supporting PSA action in the Industrial Relations Commission and taking our case all the way to the High Court.

In more recent times the PSA has been engaged in more constructive negotiations with Government led by new Treasurer, The Hon. Jack Snelling.

The PSA campaign has resulted in a decision by Government, as announced by Treasurer Snelling in The Advertiser today, to restore Recreation Leave Loading and to honour the commitment to job security for the life of this Parliament (March 2014).

The Government has not agreed to restore Long Service Leave. The PSA is demanding an equivalent scheme be established and the Government has guaranteed that change from ongoing negotiations will apply from 1 July 2011.

The PSA will continue its High Court case. While recognising that some progress has been made, Long Service Leave or a suitable equivalent value replacement remains a key issue.

The PSA campaign against job and services cuts is continuing, as no announcement to reverse these cuts has been made by Government.

Members will be kept informed of developments.

All members are urged to attend the rally at 4.00pm on Budget Day, 9 June 2011 at Parliament House.

[fish]

Further news from the PSA website:

PSA CASE TO PROCEED TO HIGH COURT

Two Judges of the High Court today accepted the PSA case for a full hearing and referred it for hearing by the Full Court (7 Judges) on a date to be fixed.

The Full Court will now hear and determine both the question of granting leave for the case to be heard, and the substantial case itself simultaneously.

Following the decision of the Industrial Relations Commission of SA that it did not have jurisdiction to hear PSA concerns for the loss of protected conditions in last year's Budget, PSA sought a judicial review by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that only the High Court could determine the matter.

PSA lodged an application with the High Court. Access is not automatic, with the Court determining whether or not to grant leave for the case to proceed.

If the High Court rules in the PSA's favour the High Court will refer the matter back to the Full Supreme Court of South Australia for determination.

HOLD THIS GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT

Members are urged to attend tomorrow's Budget rally at 4.00pm at Parliament House.

[dedja]

HOLD THIS GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT
Members are urged to attend tomorrow's Budget rally at 4.00pm at Parliament House.

You mean for trying to ensure that public servants are treated like ALL other employees in the State?

15 days long service leave is from a bygone era, as is leave loading.

Do you want permanent tenure, as well as those 2 conditions???

I've been a public servant for 10 years (although not currently employed by the State Government) and I fully support them in changing these outdated and over the top employment conditions.

For fear of repeating myself, permanent tenure must be removed as well.

[mick]

So it's OK to take conditions off people without any compensation? This government breached an enterprise agreement, I agree that you have a point in these conditions being outdated, there should have been negotiation in the next enterprise agreement to remove or modify them.
With regard to removal of tenure, this leaves the PS open to political coercion, how can a public servant give fearless advice when they may jeopardise their job for doing so?
The Rann government has done a very good job of public servant bashing, so much so there is still a public perception that the PS is full of overpaid fat cats, look at the pathetic wage rises most PS have received 2.5% not even keeping up with inflation -and all this from a "Labor" government.

[dedja]

Did you notice the bit where I mentioned I have been a public servant? I have also worked extensively in private enterprises.

With all due respect, the old line about separation of powers and political interference is just a smokescreen. Everyone else in every other profession and industry seems to manage it, so it shouldn't be too hard for the public service to adapt.

All executive public service positions are on fixed terms contracts which blows that argument out of the water. Based on your logic it is therefore already politicised!

There are many, many hard working and dilligent public servants ... but unfortunately there are also a (abeit small) number of no hopers who do not deserve the protection that tenure affords them. This is indefensible and there is no justification for this practice to continue. I bet you could name some who you work with or know who fall into this category.

With regards to losing entitlements, there should not be any issues with leave loading, but granted the 15 day long service provision will affect a few people.

The government has every right to try to change these conditions to bring public servants in line with the rest of community. If the PSA objects (which they obviously do), then let them blow large amounts of member's finances with a High Court Challenge. The result will be interesting.

[Gozu]

There are many, many hard working and dilligent public servants ... but unfortunately there are also a (abeit small) number of no hopers who do not deserve the protection that tenure affords them. This is indefensible and there is no justification for this practice to continue. I bet you could name some who you work with or know who fall into this category.

This sounds exactly like something you'd hear coming from the Libs. If it's a small number what's the problem? Why punish the majority?

It's not indefensible whatsoever, I and my fellow lefty Mick here strongly support the best possible conditions for all employees.

[Ian]

I've been a public servant for 10 years (although not currently employed by the State Government) and I fully support them in changing these outdated and over the top employment conditions.

For fear of repeating myself, permanent tenure must be removed as well.

OK so long as the remuneration is raised what would be payed in private enterprise or other state/federal governments

[dedja]

LOL, the majority won't be punished or effected ...

Tenure protects the no hopers, it does nothing for the vast majority who are good, solid employees.

If you were running your own business, would you want that provision for your employees?

[Gozu]

LOL, the majority won't be punished or effected ...

Tenure protects the no hopers, it does nothing for the vast majority who are good, solid employees.

If you were running your own business, would you want that provision for your employees?

I don't like referring to my fellow human beings as no hopers. It might make you feel better about yourself but how do you define what is a "good, solid employee"? No, if I were running my own business I might not but the reality is the vast majority of people don't run their own businesses. You could probably make a better case for your argument without the sneering arrogance.

[dedja]

How long have you been on the redeployment list Gozu?

I'll slow down a bit so you can catch up.

T h e - v a s t - m a j o r i t y - o f - p u b l i c - s e r v a n t s - a r e - d e d i c a t e d - p e o p l e - w h o - p e r f o r m - g o o d - w o r k - a n d - a r e - a p p r e c i a t e d.

T h e r e - i s - a - v e r y - s m a l l - m i n o r i t y - w h o - u n f o r t u n a t e l y - d o - n o t - m a k e - t h e - g r a d e - a n d - r o r t - t h e - s y s t e m. T h e s e - p e o p l e - g i v e - t h e - p u b l i c - s e r v i c e - a - b a d - n a m e, w a s t e - l o t - o f - t a x p a y e r s - d o l l a r s - a n d - s h o u l d - n o t - b e - p r o t e c t e d - b y - a n - o v e r - g e n e r o u s - E B - a g r e e m e n t - w h i c h - g u a r a n t e e s - t e n u r e.

Not arrogance at all, just common sense and facts.

[Squawk]

The PSA has been doing nothing for a decade or more. They should have spent more time and effort negotiating decent wage outcomes than running off to the High Court like they are now. They are the softest advocates going around.

[mick]

So Dedja it's OK to break an enterprise agreement? You havn't answered that. Do all employers have a right to break agreements? Sounds like a recipe for industrial anarchy to me.

Who ever said the PSA is soft as butter as an advocate is right, the government has no respect for them, so as a result a "Labor" government tramples on the entitlements of workers