[ummester]

staringclown, on 18 September 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

The government were capping the rises at 3%. Any additional required productivity rises we were told. Theoretically they could offer pay cuts but like Greece I suspect there would be considerable dissent.

Flipside is that when departments merge, those coming in from a lower paid dept feel like they are getting a cut compared to thoise from a higher paid dept.

Situation currently exists with my proposed agreement where a person with 3 years experience could end up on less than a person with 1 or 2 depending which old dept they were with. The bands are all being equalised but the govt only has enough money to allow staff to progress through them from where their wages were at the start of the agreement (unless they are below the band, in which case they are pulled up).

I believe, if they cut wages of the staff from depts that were previously more highly paid and put everyone with the same amount of work times experience on the same scale, the agreement would get a yes vote because the majority of staff are from previously lower wages.

It's the most interesting agreement and consequent effect on staff I've seen in my 7 years with the federal PS anyway.

[staringclown]

ummester, on 18 September 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

Flipside is that when departments merge, those coming in from a lower paid dept feel like they are getting a cut compared to thoise from a higher paid dept.

Situation currently exists with my proposed agreement where a person with 3 years experience could end up on less than a person with 1 or 2 depending which old dept they were with. The bands are all being equalised but the govt only has enough money to allow staff to progress through them from where their wages were at the start of the agreement (unless they are below the band, in which case they are pulled up).

I believe, if they cut wages of the staff from depts that were previously more highly paid and put everyone with the same amount of work times experience on the same scale, the agreement would get a yes vote because the majority of staff are from previously lower wages.

It's the most interesting agreement and consequent effect on staff I've seen in my 7 years with the federal PS anyway.

I heard they were going to try to 'equalise' the levels across departments. This too will be difficult. Under the enterprise agreement each department is considered a different enterprise. The differences in wages across departments is HUGE. The treasury guys get executive level 1 at $20000 more than say DHS or tax. Section (25/26) (i'd need to check it out which is which) is your saviour as you can transfer at level and take your conditions with you.

[ummester]

staringclown, on 18 September 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

I heard they were going to try to 'equalise' the levels across departments. This too will be difficult. Under the enterprise agreement each department is considered a different enterprise. The differences in wages across departments is HUGE. The treasury guys get executive level 1 at $20000 more than say DHS or tax. Section (25/26) (i'd need to check it out which is which) is your saviour as you can transfer at level and take your conditions with you.

Yea, but what is at level when the bands are just have an upper and lower range without specifying years of service, experience or anything?


The standardised PS pay across all federal depts should never have been split up in the first place. I don't not beleive there is a place for private enterprise, i just believe it has no place in the public sector:)

[tor]

Well that is weird. My workload over the past week or two just jumped up to my normal "insanely busy" load. About 4 weeks later than normal. I have got two jobs coming for which the proposals are over two years old. Both small business (and SQL is never a priority for small business). Keeps up like this for another two weeks and it will just look like it has been time shifted a bit.

[staringclown]

tor, on 09 October 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

Well that is weird. My workload over the past week or two just jumped up to my normal "insanely busy" load. About 4 weeks later than normal. I have got two jobs coming for which the proposals are over two years old. Both small business (and SQL is never a priority for small business). Keeps up like this for another two weeks and it will just look like it has been time shifted a bit.

The current volatility is scary and looks like being an ongoing phenomena for a while yet but I'm thinking that business can't afford to stay still for ever. It's competitive - so maybe they didn't think they could wait any longer. I don't know how much upgrade work you do tor. What you're doing sounds like new functionality hopefully to gain competitive advantage. Apparently _some_ business in Australia has deleveraged since the GFC and have some cash to spend. There must be some concern building in retail at least that on line business is growing. Does this characterise the work you're getting?