Opposition mounts to NSW pay offer
By Frances Sheehan
SYDNEY — Opposition is growing amongst members of the NSW Public Service Association (PSA) to the state Labor government's latest pay offer. Members are also angry at their union leaders' handling of the pay negotiations and their recommendation that the offer be accepted.
Meetings of PSA members were held across NSW on February 2. PSA leaders encouraged members to vote for the pay offer of 16% over four and a half years.
The Progressive PSA, an activist group within the union, had agitated for members to be allowed to hear the case against accepting the offer, but union officials allowed only those arguments in favour of the offer.
PSA officials played down members' concerns about the "efficiencies" and "savings" outlined in a memorandum of understanding attached to the pay deal. In his presentation, union secretary Maurie Sullivan said the conditions attached to the offer were merely proposals that the government makes every time a pay agreement is proposed. He pointed out several times that two other public sector unions had embraced the offer. Therefore, he argued, rejection of the offer by the PSA was futile and would isolate the union.
At most of the member meetings, the officials did allow time for questions and discussion. Members attending the Campbelltown and Liverpool meetings in Sydney's western suburbs were not able to ask questions of the union officials because none turned up. The Campbelltown meeting passed a motion condemning the officials' absence.
Anger and dissatisfaction were also high in the two inner city meetings. Members believed that if the union accepted the pay offer, it would be agreeing to further public sector job cuts and the rationalisation of government services.
Members felt insulted by the small pay rises on offer; the increases in the first two years (2% each year) are unlikely to match the inflation rate.
At one city meeting, attended by 150 members, the PSA official in charge tried to gag discussion by declaring that he would only accept questions and that comments from members must be left "until the end".
Lachlan Malloch, a Democratic Socialist Party member active in the PSA, put a motion that the meeting "be opened up for real discussion". Despite officials' attempt to stop Malloch from speaking, the motion was passed unanimously. A heated debate on the deal followed.
Despite the high level of opposition to the pay offer, it is still unclear whether the offer will be accepted or rejected in the ballot that closes on February 18. Material being distributed by the Progressive PSA urging members to reject the offer is being well received by rank and file unionists, but there are likely to be many workers that see only the "yes" case.
[To find out more about the Progressive PSA, send your details to <progressive@angelfire.com> or PO Box K519, Haymarket 1240. Visit the Progressive PSA's web site at <http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/2960>.]