Dear Colleague in the SA Public Sector
No doubt you have received a range of information regarding our proposed wages agreement that will bind us for the next 3 years.
As members of the Public Service Association (PSA) Branch Council, we are concerned that you have not received all the facts about the proposed agreement. When you cut away the spin, here is our assessment of what the agreement means for us.
We simply ask you to compare what's fair:
HOW DOES THE NEW AGREEMENT COMPARE WITH THE LAST ONE?
Our last agreement provided an annual wage increase of 4% for ASO1 to ASO3 (and equivalents) ; 3.75% for ASO4 to ASO6 (and equivalents) 3.5% for ASO7 and above (and equivalents). The new agreement offers only a flat 3.5% across the board.
Make no mistake, the proposed agreement is inferior to the last one.
HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH THE REST OF THE SA PUBLIC SECTOR?
Workers in other parts of the SA public sector have achieved the following increases:
Nurses increase of 5% paid on 1 October 2006
Teachers increase of 14.5% over 3 years (4.83% per year)
(source: Industrial Relations Commission http://www.airc.gov.au/tracee; http://www.aeusa.asn.au/documents/2468/extract/index-Schedule-2.html)
As you can see, the proposed offer is significantly less than amounts offered in other parts of the SA public sector.
HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH INCREASES GRANTED IN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY?
Employees in the federal industrial relations system were recently granted an increase of $27.40, or 5.57%, with no trade offs.
According to the Reserve Bank, pay increases to June 2006 have averaged 4.4% per annum (source: RBA Statistical Bulletin 9 November 2006 http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin)
Clearly the proposed agreement puts us further behind.
WHAT ARE WE EXPECTED TO GIVE UP?
· Another 1600 jobs slated to go in the recent state budget
· A .25% efficiency dividend across the board (saving $51,800,000) and further cuts across departments and agencies
· Total savings across the South Australian Public Sector of $695,100,000 to be found
· Further reductions in conditions through the Government Reform Commission
(source: state budget 2006 http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/statebudget.jsp?xcid=984)
We know this means we will have to do more with less. It is reasonable to ask that our contribution to these savings be rewarded. 3.5% is not a fair reflection of these efforts.
WHY WON'T THE PSA FIGHT FOR A BETTER DEAL?
Many PSA members have asked why it is that the union has not fought for a better deal on behalf of state public sector workers. From the start of the Enterprise Bargaining process PSA Secretary Jan McMahon has made it clear that she was not interested in having a campaign for a fairer deal.
Jan McMahon receives a total remuneration package from the union valued at $220,774.00, in addition to between $99,908 and $129,908 she gains from board positions. It is not surprising that a union official earning at least $319,908 per year is not interested in fighting for AS01s who will get just $20.83 per week from this agreement. .
Whatever the reason, instead of trying to sell this inferior deal, she should be fighting for an agreement that gives us a decent increase.
(sources: Memo to PSA Council 27/11/06; Health Partners Annual Report 2005 http://www.healthpartners.com.au/about/annual_report.html Savings and Loans Annual Report 2005 http://www.savingsloans.com.au/Content.aspx?p=93; Funds SA Annual Report 2005 http://www.funds.sa.gov.au/about/annual_report.html; Super SA Annual Report 2005 http://www.supersa.sa.gov.au/ )
WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
As you know, without the support of the union it will be very difficult to apply the necessary pressure to get an improved offer from the government. We are not recommending a 'no' vote, simply because we do not have confidence in Jan McMahon's ability to represent us effectively, even if the current offer is voted down.
We personally will be voting against the agreement, because we believe the offer is out of step with increases achieved in other parts of the SA public sector and the broader community, and does not adequately compensate us for the productivity improvements we are expected to deliver.
We believe how you vote is a matter for you.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
The weak position taken in these negotiations by the PSA leadership demonstrates the need for change in our union. Over the coming months you will hear more about PSA Independent Voice as we continue to work to make our union more effective and accountable.
For more information about us, our vision for the union and our action plan to reinvigorate the PSA, please visit our website www.psa-independent-voice.blogspot.com , or you can contact us on psa.iv@optusnet.com.au
We look forward to hearing your views about the proposed agreement
Thank you for taking the time to read this email
PSA Independent Voice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well done on this well researched and interesting comparison. The sooner members boot out Jan McMahon the better
good work PSA Independent Voice
Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou!!!
Given the heavy promotion of the 'Vote Yes' campaign by the PSA I thought I was the only one thinking that this EB offer was rubbish.
Under the auspices of the current PSA administration South Australian public servants have seen their salaries go backwards relative to average wage rises. The Bureau of Statistics website shows that wages growth for Full-time adult ordinary time earnings in the public sector in the 12 months to May 2006 was 5.1%. Why does the PSA insult our intelligence by promoting the current EB offer of 3.5% as a good deal?
And it’s not only this year! In 2005 Full-time adult ordinary time earnings wages growth in the Australian public sector was 4.4%. In 2004 it was 4.6%. In those years South Australia public sector employees got a wage rise ranging between 3.5 – 4.0%. How much longer do we have to endure our wages going backwards?
I note with interest that the PSA President’s income over the years does not seem to be subject to the same limited growth as applies to the people she supposedly represents. If it did maybe the PSA would behave more like a union than a social club.
It’s sad when the union that represents you makes you think that you could be better off with an AWA. It’s time for a change at the PSA!
Kim Jong Il's thoughts on the cult of (no) personality:
I have been saying the same thing to colleagues for many years. It started with Crawshaw and continued on with McMahon. They created and surrounded themselves with an industry to line an elite group of pockets and stymie any opposition voice.
I am sure that there are some well-intentioned representatives in the PSA but try asking for advice about salary negotiation when you are a TGO/OPS Redeployee and your annual salary drops $7k if you accept a new ASO position - the reply, "be grateful you found a job".
They lost my monthly contribution long ago to help pay my mortgage rather than those of JM Inc.
Why has it taken so long to get this info out? I fear we are too late for this vote but I am personally willing to put all the assistance I can toward outing the McMahon cronies and getting my union back to one that represents all members not just those who vote for Jan's Council team.
Post a Comment