We stop Government’s secret processes in merged councils

Details

Published: Thursday, 27 October 2016 11:47

The Government, principally the Department of Premier and Cabinet, has an unsavoury history of keeping things confidential in the merging of councils that should be public, or at the very least, available to Council staff and their unions.

From a politically-motivated early proclamation to get the ball rolling (forced through Cabinet by the Premier in the face of others wanting to delay the amalgamations until after the Federal election) everyone was on the back foot and, despite the best endeavours of the unions, there were still those in Government committed to keeping all the important stuff secret. Particularly the Government’s performance measures for the newly merged entities, the reporting mechanisms that were being sent to each Council to ensure compliance with this dictated regime and process, and top secret “savings targets”.

In our June issue we announced the operations of the Employment Matters Working Party.  We thought, as did LGNSW and the other unions, that this was a positive development, reflecting an acknowledgement by the Government that the local government unions and employers knew what they were doing and had got it right for decades, and it made sense for the Government to consult and learn from those who knew what they were doing.

By the time we’d announced it, the Reference Group, as it was subsequently known, had met four times but there quickly emerged a reluctance by Government to tell us what was going on. Despite our helpful role at the first meeting back on 18 April to fix poorly drafted documents (not being specific, because the cloak of secrecy extends to the functioning of this mysterious secret group) with a turnaround of 24 hours.

We accepted that the politically-motivated announcement meant that neither DPC, nor OLG, were ready and were chasing their tails to catch up.

But despite the Terms of Reference of the Reference Group acknowledging that “the primary purpose of the Employment Matters Reference Group is to identify and advise on matters impacting on the statutory and policy framework governing employment by councils”, DPC representing Government was reluctant to commit in the same way that LGNSW and the three unions were committing to the functioning of the body. Yes yes yes, we’ll keep it all confidential but you people have to do something as well.

We found out more about what the Government was doing with timeframes and targets and cost savings by documents mysteriously appearing in our office, clearly marked “Confidential – Not for Distribution”, but having significant effects on employment in the industry. We asked, when we saw media about immediate cost savings already realised, how were those figures obtained? No response, so lucky for us that some kind person sent us the first document of the Governments KPIs and how each of the merged councils compared to them.

We helpfully forwarded that to the members of the Employment Matters Reference Group and now that document, prepared on a monthly basis from fortnightly data, was provided by DPC to all members of the Reference Group. But, when this became monthly reporting, the proposed template was not referred to anyone for input despite the employment issues contained within it and, no one knew anything at all about how “cost savings” had been identified for each merged Council, what those anticipated cost savings were, both immediately and over a longer term, and how those cost savings were proposed to be delivered. Again, some helpful person provided a copy of this to us, but it was still not raised with the Reference Group.

So, not being fond of governments committing to transparent processes and then not delivering on that commitment, nor governments establishing Reference Groups or consultative mechanisms, and neither referring things, nor consulting properly, we did something about it.

We wrote to the Minister for Local Government with twelve questions about the “cost savings” targets. Clearly if the Government labelled everything “Confidential - Not for Distribution”, then councils were being prevented from disclosing that information to people who should be told. In particular, because these proposed cost savings and activities had an impact on employment, and in a way that fitted within the definition of “significant effects” under clause 39 Workplace Change and Redundancy, then the Council was at risk of breaching their obligations under the Award.

Then we wrote to the 19 Interim General Managers giving them until midday Friday to agree to disclose to us the documentation they all possessed from the DPC containing their “cost savings” and how those cost savings were to be realised - invariably by reducing staff.

For us, this was setting up a win:win scenario - either the Government agreed the documents that were marked “Confidential – Not for Distribution” would have that confidentiality and embargo lifted, or we would file an industrial dispute pursuing the Councils for not disclosing things that were happening, which would have “significant effects” on employees and the councils were not advising the employees affected, nor the unions to which they belong, as they are obliged to do under clause 39.

And when we filed a dispute we would press the Commission to stick it up the Government for putting councils in this position. It was hard to choose which of these possibilities would be better. Or more fun.

So, on Wednesday 6 October, the day before the deadline on the 19 councils, DPC emailed all the interim general managers making reference to our requests and agreeing that the documents could be disclosed to whomever the Council wanted. Just what we wanted - although it’s hard not to be a bit disappointed that we couldn’t charge our way into the IRC, with the 19 merged councils gagged by the Government, and seek the Commission’s support to remove the gag. Not a good look for a Government and a Premier increasingly on the nose.

You can see our letter to the Minister and our pro forma to the IGMs here but the email exchanges between DPC, from Steve Orr, Executive Director, Local Government Reform, and depa make even more interesting reading. We are still not sure how much of that we can publish under the agreed Terms of Reference.  Why we honour those Terms and the Government doesn’t, does make you wonder …

Who would have thought! Private certifiers need better regulation …

Details

Published: Thursday, 27 October 2016 11:23

The Government’s response to the Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005 was released in September. If you are accredited by the BPB, you should have a look at it.

150 recommendations and a significant number of them about the integrity of the system and anxieties about the conflict of interest of a developer paying for their own certifier.

The Government has committed to tightening up fire safety - principally responding to failures in the private certification that resulted in the September 2012 Bankstown apartment block fire.

Someone should have mentioned the inherent conflict of interest to Government back in the 1990’s when that boofhead Craig Knowles introduced the system!

Tamworth GM drops off on removing the nine day fortnight from existing staff

Details

Published: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 10:48

We’d hate to be misunderstood. We don’t necessarily target general managers who become the president of the Local Government Managers/Poseurs Association. There is a natural attraction, of course, of putting a target on general managers who spend time attacking the provisions of the Local Government State Award - whether that be to slash entitlements or costs or under the guise of advocating better management practices and getting all excited about management excellence.

But it’s always interesting to see how general managers, who do think it important to try to exercise some leadership role in LGM/PA, behave at their own Council. Does it follow that they demonstrate management excellence when they have the opportunity to do so themselves?

depa filed a dispute with Tamworth Regional Council late last year after GM Paul Bennett decided to strip away the nine day fortnight from existing staff.

We challenged him to provide any evidence that the nine day fortnight had compromised Council services. Staff had cooperatively managed it to ensure no loss of services and we were sceptical that there was any evidence to the contrary. Paul was unable to provide any evidence at all, deciding instead to have Dorothy Dix prepare a survey to local developers. Despite the survey’s prejudicial questioning and encouragement of responses that they couldn’t do business with the Council on Fridays on Mondays, he couldn’t get any evidence that way either.

But Paul is as sensitive to criticism as he is to employees not jumping and doing want he wants. He responded dramatically to our report on his treatment in the Commission in the February issue - blowing more than $15,000 by our guess on having a Senior Counsel attend for a less than one hour conference in Newcastle to have the union chastised. The GM, the deputy GM, the HR Manager all attended, all away from Tamworth for the day and obviously not providing services but happily supporting the SC trying to ban depa’s Secretary from continuing to appear in proceedings, to be locked in the stocks etc but all he got from the Commission, even with his SC, was the Commission’s agreement to something that depa had asked for on the very first occasion - namely, that subsequent proceedings be held in Tamworth.

While Paul might be sensitive to criticisms we might make, he isn’t very sensitive to what’s happening amongst his staff.

On 14 August he emailed all staff, (without the courtesy of a copy to us as the notifying union or the other unions) that the “Executive Management Team has now decided not to pursue the transitioning of individual staff away from current work arrangements.”

Sounds like the white flag going up to me. He continued that “our organisation is in a rebuilding phase following the service review process and I would prefer not to pursue the transition of existing staff to a 19 day month due to the impact it is having on our culture.”

Well, durr. Almost 12 months after the first letter telling the unions that he was removing the nine day fortnight, he suddenly realised he shouldn’t try to strip away the nine day fortnight “due to the impact it is having on our culture.” Well done Paul, it’s about time that sunk in. How could he not have anticipated that stripping away the nine day fortnight would have a negative impact on their culture?

You can’t take away an historic entitlement without evidence for doing so, nor can you attempt to bludgeon it through the consultative committee and behave in such a way to our delegate that you subsequently provide an apology.

And even though, in capitulating because it was damaging the culture, he reserved the opportunity of dealing with the area of development control slightly differently - “with an investigation into the specific issues our customers identifies a problem in that area.” Remember here that he hasn’t been able to sustain that their customers identify any problems in the development area. A little bit too much playing the player, and not the ball here.

It was a messy, embarrassing and clumsy process with conflicting messages, clarification the Council didn’t want to remove the nine day fortnight from all staff but they needed five weeks or so to work out those it did, and then five weeks later revealing it did want to remove it from everyone, etc. etc. To call it a farce, flatters it.

Now, not with a bang but a whimper, Paul has run up the white flag. This process won’t win him any LGM/PA awards for excellence in HR management.

Victories don’t come much sweeter than this one.

Something to put a smile on your faces - we may have found local government’s dumbest

Details

Published: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 10:31

There will be no way you can deduce from this report who we are talking about but sometimes the ignorance and lack of worldliness of some people beggars belief.

Ever heard the expression, “the blinding light on the road to Damascus”? Of course you have, how could you not.

If you Google it, because you’re not sure and it’s always better to check before you make a goose of yourself, you will go through 50 screens and still not find a link to anything other than the famous conversion story in the Christian Bible of Saul to Paul, who allegedly saw a blinding light and, literally, saw the light.

When we say 50 screens, that’s as far as we got before we simply gave up. But as we went through them one by one thinking there might be some reference to something else, it all became a bit too hilarious. Surely no one would think it could mean anything else.

But clearly you can’t assume too much. depa had used that expression in correspondence to a Council about an issue where management needed some significant education and someone, in a relatively responsible job, responded to the blinding light on the road to Damascus with indignation and horror. What, didn’t they understand its common, usual and garden use?

No, they thought we were claiming that Council management was as bad as ISIS, the so-called Islamic State! Damascus is in Syria, get it?

Yes, we would have thought it a notorious expression, pinched from the Christian stories and used broadly, generally and universally and applied to anyone who has some form of revelation or conversion. Every time we see the expression used in the paper, we feel like sending them a link or a copy.

Next time you’re critical about your own HR people, they are worldly, well-read intellectual geniuses compared to this person. Now you can think yourself lucky working where you do.

And a timely reminder that it won’t be long before we give our Worst HR Awards of the year.

Council amalgamations provide “a good night out” for old folks

Details

Published: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 10:06

When NSW Premier Mike Baird announced a commitment to improving activity levels as part of a health and anti-obesity initiative, no one picked that the public consultation process as part of the Fit for the Future amalgamations was part of that wide-ranging and comprehensive initiative.

The meetings attended around the state, and demonstrations intended to oppose the amalgamation of some of the smallest local government areas in the world, have really got the oldies off the lounge, away from the TV and out to meet with other old folk to natter, have a cup of tea and listen to the self-important, other retirees and superannuants and current and ex local government politicians.

It’s been hard to spot anyone under 60 at any of the meetings or demonstrations organised over the last month and a half. Impossible, really. (Personal disclaimer: Not that the over 60s don’t have an important contribution to make – all that history and expertise!)

Is the opposition to the amalgamation rollout limited to this demographic? If it’s only the retirees, the self-interested and clapped out local politicians, why would the Government pay any attention?

“Come on Barry, give me a cuddle”

Details

Published: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 10:01

We don’t really care how much cuddling goes on between LGNSW and the dilettantes at LGM/PA unless they start to dabble in employment issues. Because, let’s face it, neither of them have the expertise or commitment to look after the employment interests of workers in the industry - and LG M/PA is not even a registered industrial organisation. And will never be.

LGM/PA has also had a bad history when it has had the chance to do something to protect senior staff. In the Standard Contracts Working Party, the unions argued for the removal of term contracts for senior staff so the people couldn’t simply be sacked with 38 weeks’ notice when they had been doing a great job.  But when it came to the crunch about the future of term contracts, the unions were not supported by the dilettantes at LGM/PA.

Let’s be broadminded about these things, whatever sordid or fascinating plans these people have, LGNSW President Keith Rhoades reported in his weekly missive to “Mayors, Councillors and General Managers” that “this week LGNSW’s chief executive Donna Rygate met with LGPA (sic) to talk about ways to strengthen our working relationship”. Ooooo Donna, the mind boggles.

While we try to work out exactly what LGM/PA does, their website tells us that today they had 799 members. That means the organisation is smaller than even the smallest of the local government unions; more than half of their members are actually employed under the Award, despite the hostility of LGM/PA to the State Award negotiations in 2014; and the remainder may well be substantially senior staff, and that means they represent fewer senior staff than the unions do.

The unions have more senior staff as members than LGM/PA. That puts the issue in context. What is it then that LGM/PA does and what are they there for?

Now we can all be miners, NSW Government announces

Details

Published: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 09:34

NSW Premier Mike Baird today announced the New South Wales will rely on a mining-led economic recovery. The Premier announced that while Western Australia and the rest of the world were struggling with the slump in mining, the collapse in the price of iron ore and other minerals and the bottom falling out of the price of coal, New South Wales saw opportunities.

“Now with giant fines and penalties for environmental vandals, Luddites and miscreants who don’t see the benefits of mining, the sky’s the limit. Not only will we now be able to jail irritating grandparents with their knitting, Lock the Gate do-gooders, opponents of economic progress, NIMBYs, Wallabies and others with distorted priorities or who’ve fallen for the alarmists’ propaganda about water supply, the environment or the planet, everyone can be a miner.

“Dig up your own backyard, dig up someone else’s backyard, and some giant multinational can come crashing in and take it away from you. It doesn’t get much better than that in the State of New South Wales. And now, no one is going to get in the way or we’ll cart them off to jail.”

The Premier also announced a range of coal-based initiatives. “We’ll have a lot more people going to jail now it’s easy for people to be criminals by being a bit too prissy about the environment, or having fresh water, so are going to need more jails. Jails are real boost to the economy and in responding to two economic necessities we will now build them with coal.

“Everyone loves a dry stone wall if Edna Walling built it, wait until you a see what Edna couldn’t imagine because of her naturalist limitations, real good looking coal walls which will be a real thrill to a community with a new jail built entirely from coal.”

Sick of politicians? We are …

Details

Published: Wednesday, 07 September 2016 12:50

Special quarantine issue:

No politicians, no pretenders, no disappointers, no fizzers, no grubs, no spivs, no opportunists, no careerists, no misspeakers (no one saying “I misspoke”), no liars, no wankers, no rent seekers, no payment-for-comment dopes, no snouts in the trough parasites, no born to rule fantasists, no living high on the public purse abusers...

Just some good old-fashioned news.

Get ready, we’re about to start negotiating the 2017 State Award

Details

Published: Wednesday, 07 September 2016 12:50

The three local government unions – the USU, depa, and the LGEA (left to right pictured above) - and LGNSW on behalf of councils across the state, are about to start negotiating the 2017 Local Government State Award. Yes, we know it seems a long time before the next pay increase, when it would normally apply, from 1 July, but this is a process a bit more complicated than it looks.

First, LGNSW drags through a festering group of HR Managers, some GMs, some Directors of Corporate Services to see what they would like to have negotiated in the next Award. This can’t be a pleasant experience for them, and collectively, our hearts go out to them. There will be slashers and burners aplenty in this exercise - some still smarting from not being happy about the potential to take a couple of days from sick leave for the health and well-being, or time off to try and find your natural parents if you’re a closed adoption, “will anyone have any time for work?” (two of our claims from the last award negotiations) and they will want to go hard again. Strip it back, back to the 50s.

And the unions have canvassed their members (thanks to those members of ours who responded to the invitation) and a timetable has been set by the President of the IRC (probably one of the last things he does before he ascends unto the Supreme Court with a heavenly chorus) and this will see the employers’ organisation and the three unions exchanging logs of claims on Monday 12 September.

This time, the three unions will consolidate claims that we have in common to make the process a bit more efficient and effective and, as always, we have tried to be realistic in developing our own log of claims. After all, the State Award was made by agreement between the parties in October 1991 and, apart from a little bit of private arbitration and pressure exercised by members of the Commission to get us to reach agreement on different bits and pieces, the successor awards over the last quarter of a century have all been made by agreement between the parties.

Here is a link to the claims signed off by the depa Committee of Management to be part of the joint unions’ claim or, if we’re the only ones interested in them, to be pushed by us alone. I would expect, because if there’s one thing a union official knows about it’s the concept of solidarity, we will provide a united and compelling front on our claims.

The timetable set by the Commission will have the logs exchanged next week, a listing for a report in the Commission the following day; a deadline of 10 October for the parties to exchange amended logs of claim; a report back on 13 December and then a series of compulsory conferences in March and May to resolve any outstanding issues. This is a program that should allow plenty of time for us to consult with members about what we end up with in the negotiations to continue our long and proud history of an agreed approach between the unions and the employers in the industry.

Government picks up the pace on dismantling IRC

Details

Published: Wednesday, 07 September 2016 12:50

On 1 September we were part of a deputation of affiliates of Unions New South Wales to be consulted by bureaucrats from the Department of Industrial Relations and Justice on the government’s decision to dismantle the IRC - splitting it in two and sending the Industrial Court and the current President of the IRC off to the Supreme Court. We covered this in our last issue.

(Be patient, we’ll get to Humpty Dumpty in a minute.)

The meeting was opened by the Director-General of the Department of Industrial Relations who described the Brief to Stakeholders on the integration of the Industrial Court into the Supreme Court as a “proposal”. This was a surprise to everyone as the word “proposal” didn’t appear anyway in the brief and we all understood what we were being presented with was a fait accompli, that it would happen whether we liked it or not, that it would happen whether it made any good sense or not, and all they really wanted from us was seven answers to seven specific questions about functional and machinery issues to try to make the transition easier.

We hate the idea of breaking down an historic, venerable and respected institution and fear for the longevity of the remaining five members of the Commission and their staff. We know, in a digital age, that a group that small can pretty much be bundled up, metaphorically and literally, and sent anywhere. And as many of us occasionally work from our cars, we may see them driving around in a Tarago or some other suitably sized people-mover in the years ahead.

We hope not.

Here is a link to the submission we lodged on 5 September. The Government provided less than a fortnight for anyone with an interest to make a submission and, really, why would they dignify a process which is nothing more than telling us what they’re going to do, like it or lump it?

It was acknowledged by the bureaucrats on 1 September that Cabinet had already decided to do this, although they were coy about responding to our questioning of when it happened. We reckon it happened a year or so ago, but they told us Cabinet confidentiality meant they couldn’t tell us. Clearly that’s a furphy, we can understand that they can’t tell us what happened in Cabinet, but should be able to tell us when Cabinet decided to do something. Shouldn’t they?

We were inspired in preparing our submission by Humpty Dumpty’s famous line from Through the Looking Glass, “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” It’s not really a question of integrating the Court, it’s a question of disintegrating the Commission.

And phew, that must’ve come very close to breaching the quarantine.