By Ray Fulcher
MELBOURNE — Public Sector Union officials and Department of Social Security management have cooked up an enterprise bargaining package which is currently being put to PSU members around the country for "feedback".
The package, if accepted, will provide a 4% wage rise spread over the next 18 months and lay the basis for DSS working conditions for the foreseeable future.
At 39 pages, it is not a user-friendly document, with some sections being quite vague and other sections best described as "open to interpretation". Many members will rely on an analysis of the document by union officials.
The agreement includes a no-strike clause for the life of the agreement (two years). In that period no industrial action can be taken if any disagreement arises.
The current flextime award is scrapped. In its place, an addendum extends the flex band (hours in which employees can work in order to accrue time off) to 7.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. (an extra half hour each end). This, ostensibly, is the carrot. It is supposed to give people with "outside commitments" the flexibility to work the hours most suitable to them.
However, the document provides that "use of flextime is subject to operational requirements" and "managers shall have greater flexibility in maximising and regulating employee attendance". It would be possible for management to require staff to work at any time within the band, so we could see the introduction of shift rosters: 7.30 a.m.-3.30 p.m. and 9.30 a.m.-6.30 p.m., great for management but not very flexible for staff. There is a clause which specifically forbids staff refusing to work the hours dictated by management.
Currently DSS offices have an afternoon closure in which they do not have any client contact. This was
won through an industrial campaign and was the result of staff needing free time to catch up on work, read new instructions and do training.
The agreement will do away with this and increase public contact time. The agreement says that time will still be made available for reading, training etc, but with clients wanting services there will be pressure to answer inquiries and process claims.
The package will create a temporary employee pool of people who will receive (unspecified) training in duties up to the ASO 3 level (where the work is done).
This is an attempt to sidestep the issue of a lack of permanent staff. It will create two tiers of employee — one level with job security and full rights and one level with insecure prospects and fewer rights — both doing the same job. Such a pool would prove a "Trojan horse" at times of industrial dispute, given that unionisation among such "pools" is traditionally low.
The package agrees to investigate the introduction of multi benefit skilling and job rotation/mobility. This means that every officer would be expected to be proficient in at least two benefit areas, something which up till now the union has strenuously opposed. It is difficult enough now for people to gain proficiency in one benefit, given the constant changes being made and the complexity of legislation. Multi-
skilling would drastically increase workload and stress.
The higher duties allowance (HDA) provisions are a massive attack on the union principle of payment for work performed. Under the agreement "HDA is payable only where employees are assessed as effective at the level at which they are directed to perform". In other words, management can order a person to work at a higher level and not pay them for it because management don't consider them "effective" at that level.
PSU members should reject this package. The flat $8 rise for those not able to strike an enterprise agreement would at least not undermine working conditions.
In two years, when this agreement runs out, what "productivity improvements" and "efficiencies" will management be demanding? Why isn't the union fighting for a cost of living increase? These are some of the questions PSU members should be asking their officials when they come round to sell them this enterprise agreement.