CPSU has sought an urgent meeting with Defence management to find out more about how the Department intends to find $1 billion in savings per year over the next 10 years and what this will mean for staff and services.
CPSU action on public sector cuts
The proposed reductions in Defence and other departments underline the urgent need for the Federal government to provide a fully funded APS wide redeployment process. CPSU is calling for:
a commitment to no 'involuntary' redundancies in the service
a commitment that workloads will be adjusted along with staffing numbers
the development and introduction of an effective whole-of-government redeployment process
a commitment that the 2% 'efficiency dividend' will be a one-off exercise
Concerns over massive cuts
An urgent meeting of CPSU, Defence management and other unions has been arranged to discuss the impact of the cuts on staff and the services you deliver. CPSU is concerned that any reduction to civilian staffing will mean that more uniformed personnel will be performing civilian roles. This will be bad for staff, bad for the Department and bad ultimately for the Australian community.
Have your say
CPSU needs your feedback. What will the proposed cuts mean for your job security? What impact will it have on your workload? Will Defence be able to continue the work it currently performs with fewer resources? Make sure you have your say and encourage your colleagues to do the same. Please take a few minutes to provide your feedback here.
Make sure you’re protected
CPSU is in your corner. With uncertainty around job security, workloads and the impact of the cuts on your career options, union membership offers you protection, advice and support. Join online here.
I think no one would deny there are areas where Defence could be wiser with its spending, and it would be gratifiying to see these addressed - that would add up to significant savings. Why is the first reaction to cut an already stressed workforce? And will it be equitable? It seems that where some employees face the possibility of excess status, in the same location, other Defence organisations just get bigger and bigger, providing less and less services.
Posted by:Zee - 27 Mar 2008, 5:40pm
It is not just Labor, Liberals did the same thing in 2000-2001. The Office I work for was hit back then , and will be hit harder this time round because we just had a numebr of vacany and can not recruit to them. Some areas of Defence are made up of 50% civilian bacause of the type of work that is involved.
Posted by:LEANNE - 26 Mar 2008, 11:14pm
LABOR ATTITUDE'MORE FOR LESS'- ADO do not have enough uniforms to cover the civies. Do we tell our Defence members to call a recorded message helpline to help them with their queries. What a joke but seems to be the labor way to go!
I think no one would deny there are areas where Defence could be wiser with its spending, and it would be gratifiying to see these addressed - that would add up to significant savings. Why is the first reaction to cut an already stressed workforce? And will it be equitable? It seems that where some employees face the possibility of excess status, in the same location, other Defence organisations just get bigger and bigger, providing less and less services.
It is not just Labor, Liberals did the same thing in 2000-2001. The Office I work for was hit back then , and will be hit harder this time round because we just had a numebr of vacany and can not recruit to them. Some areas of Defence are made up of 50% civilian bacause of the type of work that is involved.
LABOR ATTITUDE'MORE FOR LESS'- ADO do not have enough uniforms to cover the civies. Do we tell our Defence members to call a recorded message helpline to help them with their queries. What a joke but seems to be the labor way to go!
Time to join the union.