Here comes the meat axe

chimeralaw said :

I think the public service has become too expensive. The private sector can adjust to the business cycles through (unfortunately) retrenchment and when they finally replace that position, they can adjust the wages based on their needs. They do not have to pay a specific salary. But the APS keeps on getting more money. Eg, an APS6 wage has gone from $50k in 1999 to nearly $80k in 2011. That is over a 62 % growth in twelve years. Private sector salaries have definitely not gone up 62% in that time.

Most IT salaries have not really moved all that much since 1999.

Endless pay rises above the CPI with no chance whatsoever to adjust the salaries to reflect business cycles will eventually be the downfall of the APS and consequently, the ACT in general.

ahhh no. You can’t compare nominal salaries a decade apart!! My guess is the real wage has increased by not much – certainly in line with private sector wage growth. As for increases above CPI – maybe in the good old days but not now! My EBA has no indexation, and any increase we get must be offset by ‘productivity gains’ (read: cuts to other entitlements, longer hours, less training etc).

As for your plan to ‘adjust salaries to reflect business cycles’ – you realise that this will amplify the effects of the business cycle? right? Not sure if the RBA/Treasury would be a fan of this idea…

chimeralaw said :

I think the public service has become too expensive. The private sector can adjust to the business cycles through (unfortunately) retrenchment and when they finally replace that position, they can adjust the wages based on their needs. They do not have to pay a specific salary. But the APS keeps on getting more money. Eg, an APS6 wage has gone from $50k in 1999 to nearly $80k in 2011. That is over a 62 % growth in twelve years. Private sector salaries have definitely not gone up 62% in that time.

Most IT salaries have not really moved all that much since 1999.

Endless pay rises above the CPI with no chance whatsoever to adjust the salaries to reflect business cycles will eventually be the downfall of the APS and consequently, the ACT in general.

On this note. Why are there no APS1s and 2s any more? Why is an entry level brain-dead-do-nothing APS have to be a 4? 60k a year!

Bring back the 1 and 2 level and pay people for what they actually do. No wonder theres barely any big private industry around here.

You call that a meat axe? this is a meat axe!

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1519946/ford-cuts-240-jobs-toyota-scales-back

Seriously, if any lanyards are fretting over this they should give the staff at Toyota or Ford a call and compare notes (don’t forget to dial 0 to get out).

I think the public service has become too expensive. The private sector can adjust to the business cycles through (unfortunately) retrenchment and when they finally replace that position, they can adjust the wages based on their needs. They do not have to pay a specific salary. But the APS keeps on getting more money. Eg, an APS6 wage has gone from $50k in 1999 to nearly $80k in 2011. That is over a 62 % growth in twelve years. Private sector salaries have definitely not gone up 62% in that time. Most IT salaries have not really moved all that much since 1999.

Endless pay rises above the CPI with no chance whatsoever to adjust the salaries to reflect business cycles will eventually be the downfall of the APS and consequently, the ACT in general.

urchin said :

i do agree it’s lazy governance.

That’s the bit that everyone is annoyed about, not the actual cut. The idea of a relatively fixed “efficiency dividend” every year, for ever and ever is stupid. We’re not in the business of producing y widgets for $x input, so how do you measure real efficiency gains? Yes, departments have outputs, but it’s so indirect.

vg said :

urchin said :

vg said :

Why doesn’t the government have the balls to call it what it is. Its an annual budget cut.

“a 0.25% across the board budget cut. however will we survive?”

When a department’s budget runs in the billions you might be able to understand what it means $ wise

yes, it will mean 0.25% less money. for every dollar they get they will have to cut 0.25 cents. for *two* whole years! oh my goodness. however will we survive. it’s the end of the world and we should treat it as such.

You don’t really keep up with federal government finances, do you? That’s on top of the ‘efficiency dividend’ they already fulfill.

But do tell, what else did your Cert II in Finance tell you?

??? what’s your point? it’s a 0.25% budget cut. that’s it. nothing more, nothing less. yes, on top of the existing “efficiency dividend” it comes to a whopping 1.5%… oh. my. god.

seems to me another symptom of how out of touch with reality some people in canberra are… look at the cuts being made in other countries and be glad you are only being asked to find another 0.25% to cut.

i don’t agree with the way the cut is being made (completely arbitrary) but seriously, let’s keep a little perspective here. I would rather see much deeper & more targeted cuts.

symba said :

. The govt should actually look at the cuts on a dept by dept basis, but that would actually take time.

I have a lot of sympathy for this view, although on the other hand, isn’t that the sort of thing the govt pays executives to do. If they can’t figure out a sensible program for cost takeout, I’d ask what the hell are they getting the executive salaries for? (and in doing so, have identified instant savings).

Wonder which agency will be the first to pull the usual budget cut stunt of getting rid of something cheap but high public profile, to embarass the govt into restoring the funds?

puggy said :

urchin said :

oh my goodness. a 0.25% across the board budget cut. however will we survive?

Uh…this is an increase in the yearly reductions (or “increased efficiency), for perpetuity, that is on top of the coming budget cuts. My place is rumoured to be coping a 20% cut.

well if you are copping a 20% cut the 0.25% “efficiency dividend” is just a drop in the bucket. 1/80th of the overall cut. again, tempest-teapot.

i do agree it’s lazy governance. what they should do is decide on priorities and make sure the priorities have sufficient funding to do their job properly and eliminate sections that they do not feel are priorities.

but as others have pointed out, that would require thought and effort so it ain’t gonna happen.

Actually most small agencies run very close to the bone, especially the cultural sector. An extra 0.25% does have to result in loss of positions by not backfilling behind someone that leaves. As cost such as power and rent continue to increase. Giving the cuts decision to portfolio agencies will not result in any change in allocation. The govt should actually look at the cuts on a dept by dept basis, but that would actually take time.

urchin said :

oh my goodness. a 0.25% across the board budget cut. however will we survive?

Uh…this is an increase in the yearly reductions (or “increased efficiency), for perpetuity, that is on top of the coming budget cuts. My place is rumoured to be coping a 20% cut.