December depaNEWS

Destination 2036: Government turns a blind eye to local government reform

The only option I see is avoiding the obvious solutions

We are all pretty familiar with the story of Admiral Horatio Nelson famously turning a blind eye to something he didn't want to see. Blinded in one eye early in his Royal Navy career, in 1801 during the Battle of Copenhagen, Nelson was ordered by a less aggressive Admiral giving him the discretion to withdraw. At the time, orders were conveyed by signal flags and Nelson famously lifted his telescope to his blind eye and said "I really do not see the signal" and his forces continued to attack.

When the NSW Government decided to bring together general managers and mayors from across the State they called it Destination 2036 because the talkfest was intended to construct a vision towards a better structured and more efficient local government in 25 years time. What a pity they focused their invitations on the two groups with the most to lose - general managers and mayors.

What a pity Minister Don Page and Premier Barry O’Farrell chose to not see the signal.

If you bother to read the Destination 2036 Outcomes Report you won't be surprised to see that the outcomes are carefully crafted proposals aimed at restructuring employment practices by herding "back office" (and some wag thinks that means the role of the GM) or wages staff or whatever into shared arrangements but leaving untouched the anachronistic and inefficient boundaries of the 152 local government areas in New South Wales.

depa has always been sceptical about the resistance to amalgamation and supportive of larger, well-financed councils that can better provide best practice conditions of employment and pay employees properly so they can attract and retain them in markets where skills are in short supply.

In 2003 (depaNews Bulletin 2, July 2003) we lamented the failure of the industry to respond to the encouragement provided by the Carr government and supported the approach by the then Minister Local Government Tony Kelly when he wrote to councils trying to hide and do nothing asking why they felt they shouldn't participate. We said:

"Councillors and general managers are up in arms at this pressure but do we really care? No one will be personally devastated by a reduction in the number of general manager positions and a reduction in councils across the state can only be a good thing."

There was no uprising amongst the membership and recently at an Institutes’ conference in Griffith I asked members to list the sort of things they found satisfying about their work. There were lots of suggestions about doing good for the community, flexibility and good conditions of work but no one leapt to their feet shouting out that the most rewarding part of working in local government was the richly fulfilling experience of working with councillors.

50 councils would mean 100 fewer general managers (that means we might then only have smart competent ones then) and 1000 fewer councillors. How can that not be a great start as we look at heading off into 2012?

The depa Committee of Management carried a number of resolutions at the November meeting after a serious look at and where local government was headed. The Committee unanimously carried the following resolutions:

On Destination 2036

Leaving aside that this is a cop-out that ignores the major issue, depa supports the Vision and responds that the important requirements of "developing the full potential of our people" must include a significant financial contribution to training, acknowledgement of the essential nature of paying market rates - particularly to professional employees with those skills currently the subject of a skills shortage, flexibility for work, family and life balance purposes, general flexibility in employment to allow access to varying hours dependent on lifestyle and family needs, etc.

depa has no real observations to make about the action plan apart from general support (because they really are parenthood proposals that are hard to resist or oppose) apart from those observations listed above which are more capable of being provided in larger and more financially-sustainable councils and to defend the Local Government (State) Award and the flexibility currently within it.

On the Local Government Amendment Bill

depa resolves to campaign for a more realistic timeframe to be determined on amalgamation protections based on the adoption by the amalgamated body of an organisational structure with details sufficient to identify skills and staff resources at all levels, rather than a timeframe starting with the birthday of an amalgamated body.

On the thorny question of amalgamations

While depa acknowledges some employees have emotional connections to smaller councils and communities, depa nevertheless supports the development of a commitment to amalgamating councils to provide continuing staff connections to those communities with access to:

• rewarding skilled work,
• a significant financial contribution to training to allow this to occur,
• flexibility both in terms of hours and days which can provide an appropriate balance of work: life: family responsibilities,
• well-paid positions for professional employees that are competitive and with those provided by the NSW Government and relevant private sector employers, and
• conditions of employment generally consistent with improving the reputation of the industry and making local government a desirable employer of choice, and which provide financial and economic sustainability and employment security.

 

We stop Singleton sacrificing conditions for salaried staff to appease the wages staff

Since 1984 Singleton has provided three days concession leave to salaried staff. At the time, wages staff chose a pay increase instead.

Earlier this year pressure from the wages staff and complicity by a mischievous council management thought it made sense to try to browbeat the Consultative Committee into  agreeing that the salaried staff should forfeit some of that entitlement and, with the money saved, provide a couple of days concession leave to the wages staff. Our members and members of the LGEA opposed this course of action but, for reasons still not explained, other indoor staff representatives on the consultative committee supported it.

After it was resolved, the proverbial really hit the fan. The 1984 entitlement was a Council policy and is therefore a condition of employment for everyone employed subsequently to the policy being resolved. It was not open to anyone to remove it unilaterally, nor tamper with it and it was certainly not available to the Consultative Committee to make a decision to reduce that entitlement.

We filed a dispute, the LGEA was there to support the argument and as a result of proceedings in the Commission on 30 November, the Council has resolved to reinstate the three days concession leave to salaried staff and look at having a go again at this entitlement next year.

Over our dead bodies. And bah humbug to the Xmas scrooges in management.

Panel goes gaga trying to separate the hopeless and the nasty judging the 2011 HR awards

Too much for the International Judge

It would be easy if human resources managers understood that their role wasn't just bludgeoning the workforce. Imagine if they thought it made sense to support and encourage the development of their employees and not just hammering them into templates, cutting costs and cutting opportunities.

It would also be easy if we could separate out those who are more incompetent than they are malicious. Are they bad and nasty people or just stupid?

And hopeless HR doesn't just depend upon HR managers. Many HR managers (oh, all right then) some HR managers really do try to do the right thing but don't have much of an option if the Director Corporate Services or the General Manager is a nasty piece of work, or a dope, or a sadist intent on wreaking havoc and misery and driving employees somewhere else.

So, no wonder our acclaimed International Judging Panel (and particularly the international member) found it very, very hard to separate some serious contenders this year.

Nominated this year were:

Blayney

For the general antagonism evident in their hopelessly-handled dispute with us this year about failing to protect employees against crazy attacks by councillors, councillors so crazy that even the general manager couldn't stand it and resigned in the middle of our dispute, membership bans on, members on strike, intervention by the Division of Local Government to straighten out the crazies but now on the path to recovery with a new GM filling the health and building vacancies .

Fairfield

Generally doing okay but thinking it made financial sense in a budget of $140 million a year to try to take $10 a week discount from the leaseback fee from three employees who live almost next door to the Council and have enjoyed that discount for over two decades. Wow, saving $1500 a year and it only costing the goodwill of the three employees concerned and their historic commitment. Tighter than a fish’s sphincter, my dad would say.  Because they are water-tight.

Gosford

Historically a pernicious, unimaginative, stonewalling and unpleasant employer which over the years has been so difficult we even had to resort to the IRC managing a process that resulted in an agreement between us that they would respond to our correspondence!

Gosford remains the Council where our activities have been the most costly - in 2000 we made them spend $1.1 million on new air-conditioning for the Administration building.  Nice one.

And this year the conga line of incompetents all lining up to run a hopeless, subprofessional and inadequate investigation, failing to ask the right questions of the right people and generally disadvantaging a member of ours. And in a document for our convenience identifying all the participants in the conga line who both individually and collectively deserved a good kicking for their hopelessness. This included:

• the Performance Management Auditor (and how about that for a misnomer!)
• the HR Manager
• the Manager Organisational Development
• the Director Corporate Services
• the Director, City Services, and
• the Acting General Manager (who was also the Director, City Services so he was responsible for making bad decisions in both capacities. A real first in this competition.)

What a list.

And a ban imposed by our members on participating in any investigation conducted by the Performance Management Auditor (sic) remains firmly in place. We kidd you not. (This is an in joke inserted for members at Gosford.)

One of the things the Council agreed to do after the humiliating recommendations of IRC President Justice Boland was to rewrite their investigations policy so that employees could have more confidence in any investigation being done being done properly.  We have set the clock on them to see if they live up to their usual glacier-like pace and you can see the clock ticking on our home page.

Lismore

For almost invariably getting it wrong at every opportunity, for never, ever understanding how to interpret the Award and for showing scant regard for the market and not doing things they said they would do - but let down by the departure of the old general manager and a chance of recovery.

Liverpool

For having an apparent corporate policy of disdain for building surveyors and preferential treatment of planners going back about 15 years, running the staff numbers down, failing to pay market rates and then wondering why they get no decent candidates, filling vacant positions with external contractors, not managing the problems that arise with staff shortages or the antagonism and unrest amongst the workforce and for generally providing about the most toxic workplace one Panel member had ever seen.

Upper Hunter

Intransigent, intractable, bloody-minded, getting employees on the cheap and testing their urine whenever they feel like it to make sure they're not having much fun when they go home either.

Taree

Otherwise known as Greater Taree, the HR decisions of the regime of the current general manager Gerard José reminds us that “Greater” only means larger, and not more magnificent. Where do we start?

The carryover from last year's clumsy investigation; the ambushing of our members in the investigation process; members on strike; overriding the rules of the salary system when that suits them; trying to remove conditions of employment on the use of a car and in doing so acknowledging they would rather someone be less productive than continue the entitlement; restructuring and damaging the morale and fabric of an efficient, reliable and trustworthy workforce with confidence in their manager; advertising jobs with a salary range that does attract candidates but then refusing to pay anything other than entry-level so they don't get anyone; refusing to accept two unanimous recommendations of selection panels; running the assessment staff numbers down because they don't get anyone and then pressing for the same performance as if there were no vacant positions; persecuting our delegate with a bogus request for an explanation of something alleged to be a breach of the Code which clearly wasn't; being prepared to arbitrate issues affecting three members and getting a lawyer to do it and, if the rumour is right, saying there was a blank cheque to oppose depa etc etc.

And finally to delete a Council policy providing a gratuity to long-standing employees who resigned or retire in the face of the wishes of the Consultative Committee and employees affected - something we will deal with in 2012 although we were hoping one of the other unions with more members affected might like to walk to the crease for this one.

But there can only be one winner.

Come on down, Gerard

It was close, with contenders snapping at their heels all the way, but the International Judging Panel couldn't go past Taree.

Congratulations, Greater Taree.  Your contribution to the morale, self-respect and welfare of your employees is now properly acknowledged.

But wait, there is a happy note from Taree

The issue that led to the clumsy investigation by the Council of our delegate and Manager Jim Boyce last year was a generous gift by members to Jim. It was a generous acknowledgement for his time and effort in having all of our positions upgraded in a lengthy exercise using the 00Soft job evaluation system and resulting in significant pay increases to all members. Basically when the positions were evaluated after 1992 they were all placed on one level below where they should be in the Award.

Some people at the Council found it unbelievable that employees, happy with the results of Jim’s work and enthusiastic to recognise it, would reward him with a generous cash gift. No one ever rewarded them!

In the end, Jim provided the money to depa to keep in trust and we, in turn, gave him $200 of that back to satisfy the spirit of the appreciation of the members.

Some of the money was paid out in strike pay to members taking industrial action and some was left.

We have just negotiated an agreed departure from Jim from Taree. Covered by a Deed of Release we are both unable and reluctant to disclose its contents.

But in a recent conversation with Jim I mentioned the absolute joy of seeing whales migrating down the coast while I was at Port Macquarie.  Jim agreed and any of you who have done similarly will know what a fabulous experience it is. Tempered, of course, by the knowledge that the whales and their calves are migrating to the Southern Ocean to be chased by Japanese whalers and potentially killed under some bogus scientific whaling excuse.

Jim decided that the remainder of the money should be donated to Sea Shepherd to assist them in their current Operation Divine Wind to try to ensure that this whaling season in the Southern Ocean is the last.  

Thanks Jim, the donation has been made on your behalf and that of the members at Taree responsible for your gift.