Has agency bargaining become wasteful duplication?
All Australians will have fairer industrial relations laws from 1 July as a direct result the Your Rights at Work campaign. But the new laws also present an opportunity to pursue important public sector reforms, writes CPSU National Secretary, Stephen Jones.
Implementing the Fair Work Act in the APS
CPSU has commenced discussions with Government on a new Framework for Bargaining in the Australian Public Service. We believe the system inherited by the Rudd Government is riddled with unfairness and inflexibility and is in need of an overhaul. We don’t think it is fair that APS employees, doing the same job at the same level of proficiency, can earn thousands of dollars less; depending on which department they work in.
The problem becomes worse when Government initiates machinery of government changes. Departments are brought together with different pay and conditions and it can take months – sometimes several years – to sort out disparate employment arrangements.
The APS is one employer
We believe that a streamlined and efficient approach to policy and service delivery should also apply to employment arrangements. The Government appropriately seeks whole of service cooperation around its national priorities, whether they be the global finance crisis, climate change, indigenous disadvantage, an education revolution or tax reform. The Public Service Act requires Senior Executive Service employees to apply a whole of government approach to their work, and agencies are supposed to apply consistent standards across the APS when valuing and classifying jobs. If these are the values that underpin the Rudd Government's approach to the challenges of our future, they should be recognised in the pay and conditions that apply to APS workers as well.
Strong support for change
We believe our proposal makes sense for APS employees and for the Government. Fairer, more equitable pay and conditions, and a more efficient bargaining process that doesn’t waste millions of dollars each year in duplicating agreement making. A proposal that saves millions of dollars currently spent administering different pay and conditions arrangements and the millions of dollars wasted in sorting out the mess whenever Government restructures itself.
We want a single agreement on pay and classifications for all APS employees. During the development of CPSU's Agenda for Change and our Essential Services campaign thousands of union members and APS employees singled out the issue of wage disparity for attention. In workplace meetings, online forums and public workshops around the country, CPSU members issued a clear call for Government to tackle the problem and start bridging the pay gaps between agencies.
We believe our proposal for a single agreement on pay and classifications is a good deal for APS workers, a good deal for the Government and a good deal for tax payers.
How do we get there
After a decade of fragmented bargaining it will take some time to make the transition to a new system. There is a lot of work to be done in reviewing the systems that created such disparate pay outcomes. The classification system needs to be modernised to recognise the professional skills and experience that APS workers bring to their jobs. For this reason we have proposed a two year process, as outlined below.
All new agreements should have a common expiry date of July 2011
Between now and July 2011 there should be a joint review of pay and classifications which will enable us to implement a new pay and classification system for the APS after July 2011.
Recognising that agencies have their own issues and operating environments, CPSU will engage in an extensive consultation process with members to discuss which issues should be included in an agreement which covers the APS as a single employer and which issues should be resolved at the agency level.
We also believe that there are some rights, conditions and obligations that should apply in every APS workplace – work and family, occupational health and safety, annual and long service leave, sustainable work practices, job security and redundancy benefits. We will talk to government about how these issues might be dealt with more effectively in a whole of government agreement.
Get involved
Over the coming weeks we will continue to talk to Government about how this model could be implemented. It's important that CPSU members continue the discussion we started through our Agenda for Change and Essential Services campaign. Join the debate and have your say by emailing rights@cpsu.org.au or by posting a comment below.
Posted by:judith - 21 Aug 2009, 7:27pm Bring it on. lets have one agreement. There is far more strength in numbers in this situation. Also the first one will have to have the highest for each pay level and equity for the best public service conditions eg. Darwin classified as remote for all agencies, not some and not others-it doesn't move depending on who you work for!
Posted by:Anon - 24 Jul 2009, 10:31pm May be great for the union who can save time and effort but I'm quite happy with current arrangements at least we are consulted - do you think the CPSU or whole of APS would bother with the comments from an individual. Great for the CPSU political agenda and profile - bad for individual service to members. Count me out.
Posted by:Mishell Warner-Camp - 21 Jul 2009, 9:15am I don't want one APS agreement. Other states get paid far less than the NSW and ACT. This would mean that if we were to have one agreement, we would be at risk of getting less money and over time less pay rises as the states wouldn't have the ability to pay those higher rates. As things are more expensive in NSW and the ACT this would have an impact on our quality of life.
Posted by:Jonathan Wraith - 23 Jun 2009, 5:11pm Hurray, perhaps sense will finally prevail and we can all stop these wasteful and inequitable agency based agreements.
I applaud the CPSU endeavour to restore sense to the APS industrial scene.
Posted by:Nick - 19 Jun 2009, 4:04pm I think the union is wasting its time here. An earlier comment suggested it might be to do with uion leader's own agenda, I rather think it more to do with an ACTU push for pattern bargaining.
We can't go back to some mythical golden age of 1 APS wide set of conditions and its 10 PMMs. The horse has well and truly bolted from the stable- indeed the stable no longer exists.
I find the argument put forward in the bulletin most uncompelling. And as has been pointed out - were CPSU members consulted about this?
Bring it on. lets have one agreement. There is far more strength in numbers in this situation. Also the first one will have to have the highest for each pay level and equity for the best public service conditions eg. Darwin classified as remote for all agencies, not some and not others-it doesn't move depending on who you work for!
May be great for the union who can save time and effort but I'm quite happy with current arrangements at least we are consulted - do you think the CPSU or whole of APS would bother with the comments from an individual. Great for the CPSU political agenda and profile - bad for individual service to members. Count me out.
I don't want one APS agreement. Other states get paid far less than the NSW and ACT. This would mean that if we were to have one agreement, we would be at risk of getting less money and over time less pay rises as the states wouldn't have the ability to pay those higher rates. As things are more expensive in NSW and the ACT this would have an impact on our quality of life.
Hurray, perhaps sense will finally prevail and we can all stop these wasteful and inequitable agency based agreements. I applaud the CPSU endeavour to restore sense to the APS industrial scene.
I think the union is wasting its time here. An earlier comment suggested it might be to do with uion leader's own agenda, I rather think it more to do with an ACTU push for pattern bargaining. We can't go back to some mythical golden age of 1 APS wide set of conditions and its 10 PMMs. The horse has well and truly bolted from the stable- indeed the stable no longer exists. I find the argument put forward in the bulletin most uncompelling. And as has been pointed out - were CPSU members consulted about this?