By Pauline O'Brian
On February 26, the Howard government announced the closure of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) and its replacement with a system of private employment firms — the "Job Network" — to begin on May 1.
The system is based on a voucher system. A price is put on the head of each unemployed person — around $300 for the newly unemployed, up to $10,000 for a long-term unemployed person.
The employment agency is paid for taking on a case, a second payment is made for placing them in a job, and a final payment results if the person remains in the job for a designated period.
Services provided will include matching unemployed people with vacancies, assistance with job searching (like the old Job Clubs), "intensive employment assistance" (the old case management system) for harder to place people (and the most lucrative), placements in half-pay "new" apprenticeships and traineeships, and finding people for seasonal work such as fruit picking.
The government has approved 306 firms in 1404 "sites" across Australia. A third of these firms are community groups, a third privately owned and a third government-run. The government sector is largely the federal government-owned company Employment National (formerly the Public Employment Placement Enterprise).
Since Employment National will be one of the largest players, staffed with experienced ex-CES staff and executives, it is likely to be privatised if it proves profitable.
The Sydney Morning Herald has revealed that one contractor, Employment Interactive, has been given a large contract in Sydney. The company is little more that one person with a flat and phone, subcontracting the firm JOBfutures to carry out the work.
Since making money is dependent on jobs being available, country or depressed regions may miss out on an employment service altogether. The level of service for many areas may simply be someone at the end of a phone. Some areas currently serviced by CES offices will get only a part-time office.
It is possible, for instance, that an outfit like the National Farmers Federation could start up a subcontract operation to provide labour at less than award wages and conditions to provide scab labour on demand.
Of the 5300 staff employed by the CES, only 1200 will be offered jobs at Employment National. Staff will have to agree to an Australian Workplace Agreement individual contract, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, that will destroy conditions. Employment National has attempted to strong-arm its initial skeleton staff with this AWA.
The Community and Public Sector Union, meanwhile, is arguing before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to have CPSU awards carry over into Employment National, using a provision in the Workplace Relations Act covering business takeovers.
CPSU members in the CES are considering a certified agreement, to be voted on by mid-March, which includes some provisions beyond normal redundancy procedures, such as money for retraining and for redeployment in the Australian Public Service.
The agreement leaves the 4100 CES staff not accepted by Employment National with three options. They are: job swaps with people at Centrelink (the old DSS office network) wanting voluntary redundancies (estimated at 700 jobs); three-month trial placements with private employers, most probably with successful tenderers for CES business or redeployment through the Australian Public Service Labour Market Adjustment Package; or voluntary redundancy, with payouts dependent on length of service, and in some cases payment of super. Given that none of these options provide any certainty of a job, it is possible that there may be sackings.
CPSU joint national secretary Wendy Caird promised in 1996 that the CPSU would retaliate industrially if "involuntary redundancies" occur. This promise was not kept during the recent Tax Office dispute.
However, the huge number of jobs involved in the destruction of the CES is a test for the Caird leadership. Its history has been one of acceptance of agency bargaining, its enforcement and a refusal to go outside DEETYA to other areas of the CPSU or other unions for support. It has relied on appeals to state institutions, from parliament to the AIRC, and half-hearted and uncoordinated half-day closures and strikes.
The CPSU opposition, National Challenge, has argued for a CPSU-wide strategy based on the industrial strength of the rank and file. Three times, motions proposing such a course were voted down in the old DEETYA national delegates' committee (the predecessor to the section council).
CPSU National Challenge is now calling for guarantees of employment for those wanting to remain in the public service, to go beyond the weak provisions of the certified agreement. It is also calling for the CPSU DEETYA section council leaders to be condemned for not doing enough to save the jobs of CES staff.