Old blokes collapse and let Mum keep working part-time

Details

Published: Wednesday, 20 May 2015 13:40

Somewhat coyly we haven’t disclosed the name of the Council where we have been having a running brawl with some 19th-century minds about a member returning to work part-time after her second child.

This is the Council that refused a request for a 31 hour four day week and demanded that she return to work full time. You’ve had your maternity leave, get back to work! So much for the changes in social attitudes over the last 50 years and the provisions of the legislation and the Award.

We made them provide a three month trial and the Commission tried to help them with encouragement to develop performance criteria so they could establish whether there were operational reasons to reject the request that this arrangement continue. There were no operational reasons to reject the application in the first place and, after almost 3 months, tail between their legs, the Council conceded and provided an extension of the part-time arrangements.

We give advice to parents wanting to return to work on a part-time basis all the time. Sometimes every week. There are some councils where parents returning to work are supported, where a variety of arrangements are put in place to ensure they don’t come back too early, feeling guilty and compromised in their responsibilities to their family, and are then joyfully welcomed back to fill the gap created by their absence. Welcome back.

And occasionally there are the laggards, the councils stuck in the 19th century or where the old blokes think they are part of the misogyny of Mad Men, who think they can reject requests for part-time work, not for operational reasons, but for political or ideological reasons. It’s not the 19th century, it’s not even the 20th century and it certainly isn’t 1950.

These councils give scant regard to their obligations under the Award and the Fair Work Act and not only look ancient, uncompromising and obsolete, but they then have that painfully reinforced when they find they can’t get what they want.

Fit for the Future

Details

Published: Wednesday, 20 May 2015 13:34

Uh oh. I know what you’re thinking. “Did he amalgamate six councils or only five?” Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a 17 seat majority government, with the most powerful electoral mandate in the world and recommendations from an independent panel that would blow your Council clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?

A rigid template of what constitutes fitness for the future is being hammered onto the 152 local government areas and no-one really knows how things will look when the dust settles. Probably not even the Government.

But everyone knows local government needs to be reformed, and the reform process will involve changes in boundaries, but no one wants anything to happen to their own Council. NIMBYism is both natural and understandable but it won’t get in the way of a rampant Government zealous about reform. How rampant, or reforming, or even how effective any changes might be remains to be seen but Premier Baird took the Fit for the Future strategy and process to the election and had a resounding win. An easy opponent yes, but a resounding win nevertheless.

30 June is the deadline for councils to be able to establish that they are financially sustainable for the future and should be left alone.

Councillors with far more important things to do than worry about long-term financial sustainability are justifiably concerned. Busy pursuing their own individual self-interest; looking after their mates or the local Racing Club; ignoring their own council’s cleanup orders under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act; having the ICAC looking over their shoulders; dabbling in the general manager’s responsibilities; or persecuting staff; or being in a minority and trying to ignore majority resolutions of councils; or who are the subject of performance improvement orders from the Minister for Local Government; and a variety of other distractions, who is looking after their ratepayers and citizens?

The council’s employees are, that’s who.

Read more ...

Review of the BPB

Details

Published: Tuesday, 19 May 2015 15:41

Those accredited by the BPB will be aware that the NSW Government has established a review of the BPB’s legislation and effectiveness. We met with Michael Lambert, who has been charged with the responsibility and put our views and there is now a discussion paper out inviting further consultation and responses.

Here is a link. If you are accredited and have a view, use the link to express a view.

Got the boss's job at last and don’t need us anymore?

Details

Published: Tuesday, 19 May 2015 14:55

Oh no, you’re not.

Every now and again, members of ours (and the other unions as well) get projected through the firmament and find themselves and their careers taking them to the top. We have a good number of members who are general managers, as does the LGEA and the USU. These are employees who understand the importance of being protected in their employment and that the need for protection doesn’t diminish the higher up you go in the organisation.

Then there are those who decide they can look after themselves. For us, that’s a tiny minority of members, but it’s timely to remind everyone that the standard contract for senior staff and general managers doesn’t remove the right to be represented, nor the capacity for depa, or the other unions, to act on behalf of their members and protect them from the vulnerability of that higher level of employment. At that level, being able to look after yourself is an illusion.

The most vulnerable employee in local government is the general manager and, while the frenzy of activity of good general managers being sacked after the last local government election has calmed down, the risk remains.

Making the decision that as bosses they are no longer vulnerable and need representation is demonstrably a bad call in local government. Bad judgements are not made in isolation. Like in kangaroos in the landscape, once you’ve seen one, you realise there are many.

The closer you get to the top, poor judgement and decisions that can cost you dearly.

We are updating our rules

Details

Published: Tuesday, 19 May 2015 14:26

Over the last few months, the Committee of Management has been considering a thorough review of our rules. The rules of industrial organisations like ours are regulated under the NSW Industrial Relations Act 1996 by the NSW Industrial Registrar. Unions and employers’ organisations operate under rules which reflect provisions of the Industrial Relations Act or provide generally for good governance, effective administration and protections and fairness to members.

The Committee of Management at the last meeting on 11 May resolved to modernise the rules, improve administration, better manage how members become members and continue as members, how better to remove members who disappear and don’t tell us, and to reflect electronic communication, financial controls and record-keeping.

These changes were agreed in principle by the Industrial Registrar and will now be submitted as a formal application. This isn’t a very exciting process but sometimes good governance and transparency aren’t.

You can expect the changes to be announced in our next issue and then on our site.

Tamworth brings in the big guns

Details

Published: Tuesday, 19 May 2015 14:18

In March we reported on the attempts by the GM at Tamworth Regional Council to remove the nine day fortnight - a system that had operated, by agreement and without complaint or examination for more than a decade. Neither the article in depaNews, nor the correspondence we had exchanged with the Council, nor observations we had made in the IRC about the process were appreciated by the GM.

So the Council, which has retrenched staff because of budgetary difficulties and saw the removal of the nine day fortnight as something they needed to do as they struggled with their fitness for the future, decided to hire a Sydney Senior Council to travel to Newcastle for a hearing barely longer than an hour, to complain and seek directions against depa for being unkind. Or not bargaining in good faith, as they put it.

Directions or orders were sought in proceedings for depa to retract everything we have said, to apologise unreservedly, to not allow the Secretary of the union to appear in the proceedings any longer and to generally behave in a more polite and subservient manner, like the staff are expected to behave at Tamworth. Just as well there are no penal provisions in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act.

All these directions and orders were rejected by the Commission, notwithstanding the gravitas with which they were put by Senior Council in front of a jam-packed court including the GM, the Deputy GM and Legal Counsel, the HR Manager and two representatives from LGNSW. No shortage of heavyweights there. A lot of people who, we are sure, could have been far more productive doing something else.

But while Deputy President Harrison rejected the extreme requests, he did agree to set the matter down for further conference in Tamworth in June - something we and the two supporting unions had asked for on the first occasion the dispute had been considered.

They say that good negotiation is getting people to do what you want and having them think it was their idea all along. We acknowledge it was a great idea of Tamworth’s to suggest that we next meet in Tamworth.

South Africa stripped of World Cup placing

Details

Published: Wednesday, 01 April 2015 00:00

The International Cricket Council this morning moved on South Africa for flouting the NSW Government’s ban on unacceptable, misleading and obscene names. This policy initiative was announced a year ago as a result of a commitment from Premier Barry O’Farrell to Christian Democrat MLC Fred Nile that the Government would clean up language and unacceptable gestures.

The ICC announced that South Africa had breached the Government commitment by playing Quinton De Kock. This cultural insensitivity was “regrettable”, a representative of the South African Cricket Association said. “We also apologise for playing Vernon Philander, as his name could easily be confused as philanderer. We apologise to Mr Nile and the Government.”

The Hon Mr Nile, emboldened and encouraged by looking like he will shortly hold the balance of power in the Legislative Council, welcomed the Government’s pressure on South Africa.

Mr Baird is doing the right thing and for a Government committed to high standards, clearing out those ten questionable people and not having a Deputy Premier named Stoner is a real improvement.

The Government clarifies the sale of Poles and Wires

Details

Published: Wednesday, 01 April 2015 00:00

Deputy Premier Troy Grant this morning clarified that the sale of poles and wires did not mean all Australian citizens with Polish blood will be sold into slavery. “Gee whiz, after the resounding election mandate from NSW voters, it’s hard to say no to getting rid of all those unpronounceable names. They might be too hard for us simple country folk and many immigrants refuse to Anglicise their name as well, but slavery is out. Until we get Work Choices back, of course.”

“Even though it’s a lifestyle choice to insist on keeping unpronounceable and unspellable names and out here in the bush we have better things to do, it’s still not on”, the Deputy Premier added.

“Kosciuszko is too hard. Really Big Mountain is better and we shouldn’t have to worry about the funny little thing that should go over the first s either.”

The Government’s plans to sell Wires have been enthusiastically embraced by some who thought it meant the Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service. “While we agree it should be funded by tree huggers and those more interested in wildlife than proper useful animals like cattle”, the Deputy Premier said, “we don’t own it, so we can’t sell it.”

“Most of you city people have never seen the damage a kangaroo can do to a fence when you’re chasing it in the ute,” so maybe something for our third term.”

John Howard sees silver lining after Malcolm Fraser’s death

Details

Published: Wednesday, 01 April 2015 00:00

The death of Malcolm Fraser and the memorial service in Melbourne last week allowed Australians to celebrate an ex-Prime Minister who became more popular and likeable over the decades. As an old-fashioned Liberal, economically dry but socially progressive, Fraser had encouraged the acceptance and settlement of Vietnamese refugees during his period of Prime Minister and government.

While Fraser subsequently and compellingly argued he was no more likeable, he was surrounded by people who became more difficult to like as his political party became increasingly conservative. “It was all relative really”, he observed as he blasted his former political party for its hostility to refugees and multiculturalism.

Former Prime Minister John Howard, who remains precisely the sort of person he was when he was thrown out by his own electorate at the same time as his government was ejected, has embraced the possibility that he can now become the only living Liberal ex-Prime Minister the people grow to like.

“Certainly, I’m no more likeable than I was. I fought multiculturalism, compulsory superannuation, industry superannuation funds, I liked the idea of claiming babies have been thrown into the water by refugees trying to get into Australia, I followed the US and Britain into Iraq based on weapons of mass destruction that never existed and I never apologised for anything and I would never apologise to our own stolen generations.”

“But now, my time has come.”

Polling conducted by Fairfax Media and published this morning found 78% thought this unlikely. A further 17% thought this very unlikely.

“New South Wales is open for business” Baird Liberal/Coalition Government commits to dramatic initiatives

Details

Published: Wednesday, 01 April 2015 00:00

NSW announces privatisation of Building Professionals Board

Premier Mike Baird today announced that the Government would adopt recommendations from the review of the BPB by the respected ex Treasury official and finance professional Michael Lambert.

Mr Lambert’s long career included a review for the Government of the possibilities of selling parts of the electricity industry. His report recommended the sale of the poles and wires infrastructure, now a firm but misunderstood commitment of the returned NSW Government.

The Premier said, “while our commitment to sell parts of the electricity industry superstructure is really selling a resource that will decline in value over the years, the BPB would be an absolute goldmine for private speculators. It has a solid income stream from local government and that will increase exponentially.”

“It was a brilliant decision of the Labor Government to expand accreditation beyond private certifiers. Yes, we know that the Board was hopeless in managing the way private certifiers went about their business looking after the interests of those who paid them a fee, but who would have thought it would be any different?  But it was a masterstroke to accredit local government employees. In the three years they have been accredited they have never been investigated, prosecuted nor disciplined by the Board. This is a perfect arrangement.”

“A complete waste of time if it were a role for the public sector, because it would be unnecessary regulation and red tape and damned by IPART, but it’s up there with owning a casino if you want guaranteed income. The mugs just keep paying”, he said.

“This is an ideal income stream - the money flows in from local government and the Board doesn’t need to do anything other than not lose accreditation records.”

The Premier announced that he believed Chinese interests, UBS and other investment banks and the Development and Environmental Professionals’ Association would be interested buyers.

depa was smart enough to see through the folly of private certifiers and that the Government’s plans to accredit local government employees was based on lies and designed to be nothing more than an income stream guaranteed into the future.