Pay differentials a bad thing?

2604 said :

Even with some of the highest pay rates in the APS, ANAO turns over staff at a rate of almost 40% per annum. For APS level staff it’s more like 60%. Go figure…

Finance had a similar problem in certain Groups, in fact they got hammered in senate estimates a few times for this. Paying lots of money attracts people *in*, but it won’t keep them if the job and work environment are unpleasant.

Mary Whitehouse said :

Did anyone notice that going by the graphic on the front of the Canberra Times today the most extravagant payers seemed to be… the Australian National Audit Office.

This is because it has one of the worst working environments in the APS! The SES have all been there a thousand years and can’t be sacked no matter how they treat their staff, the audit managers mostly don’t know what they’re doing, and APS-level staff do the bulk of the audit work and still struggle to get above APS5 level. I’d rather slit my own throat than go back to working there!

Even with some of the highest pay rates in the APS, ANAO turns over staff at a rate of almost 40% per annum. For APS level staff it’s more like 60%. Go figure…

Pay difference is entirely understandable. I’ve worked in agencies where an EL1 wouldn’t cut it as a 5 in one of the more high-level, high-performing agencies. It simply wouldn’t work if those in a slacker agency were paid the same as in a hardworking or highly technical one. It all falls into place – the low-paying agencies are either full of dumbasses, or the agencies themselves, like the ABC or the National Library, have a perceived cachet about them that makes it all worthwhile. It’s no coincidence that AusAid gets to hire EL level talent into more junior positions. It offers (perceived) good.

Pay and conditions are quite different in various agencies. Finance have quite high payrates, especially at certain levels. They too have to attract accountants and economists. But they traded away their overtime, which is kind-of funny as for the budget lead-up, they’re working all-nights and all-weekends. For nix! They do get free milk in their fridges, except they don’t have proper tearooms. And the balance of milk was never right, one week there’d be lots of women around drinking the fake milk, and the next week if they were off, you’d have 4 cartons of that and no proper milk, and have to go off and do deals with other areas who had the milk you were after. Or just steal it…

Did anyone notice that going by the graphic on the front of the Canberra Times today the most extravagant payers seemed to be… the Australian National Audit Office.

I started the day with a smile after that!

I don’t have a problem with different pay rates for different agencies – then again I’m not working for the Government.

Seriously though, do people really believe that an EL2 or SES1 working in say the Environment Department or DMO are operating at the same level as an EL2 or SES1 in say Treasury, or PM&C? Of course they’re not and they shouldn’t be paid the same either.

On the other hand lower level clerks (are they still called clerks?) shovelling paper work from here to there may well be getting a raw deal.

Ultimately the pay rates are set in agreements, and they’re just that – what the workforce and the management agreed to – if people dont like it you know where the door is.

Personally i’d rather let people negotiate their own remuneration without the ‘help’ of unions. Let the market set the rate at which people are paid – it’s already waaaaaay too easy for the private sector to poach whomever they’d like simply by adding some $$ to the offer they make. Of course, what you then need to do is standardise conditions, so it’s manageable form an HR perspective…

Public servants ultimately work for the same employer (the govt.). A standard salary scale with standard working conditions across the public service is only fair.

With a central area taking responsibility for negotiating pay and conditions for all public servants productivity would increase. Currently, an inordinate amount of staff and management time is taken up by each agency in negotiating pay and conditions every 2-3 years.

Having one set of pay rates across the PS would make it easier for staff to switch from one agency to another. It would also be easier for a program to move from one department to another.

Departments and agencies have a lot more differences than just rates of pay though. Working conditions like maternity and paternity leave, sick leave, working hours, access to flexibility such as part time work or flex leave etc are all variable depending on where you work. I wouldn’t suggest that all PS jobs should have exactly the same pay and conditions, but the vast differences do affect where people want to work.

I know that working mothers do talk about their working conditions. And they will switch to an agency that is seen to be more family-friendly. Not because they’re slack, but because they want to work productively for a flexible employer who trusts and respects the staff.

Small agencies get done over. I went from a small agency to a big dept, and got a 10K payrise just for swapping jobs. I was a lot less busy and stressed in the second job too. Boring though.

Another small agency I worked for (under 50 people) ended up with a bizarre certified agreement where they traded away all sorts of things to get heaps of bereavement leave, as several staff were recently bereaved.

I actually favour one pay system across the PS. It is now a nightmare for HR when people move across, as nothing matches up anymore. Those coming from Defence may have 6 months worth of annual leave as there is no cap on it, and go to a dept where you are deemed to be on leave if you have more than 8 weeks.