Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Peace in our time – ACT PS pay dispute apparently over

johnboy 1 July 2010 23

Chief Minister Stanhope has announced an agreement on ACT Public Service Pay.

The in-principle agreement is based upon the Government’s final wage offer, providing for a 2.5% salary increase from 1 July 2010 and a common nominal expiry date of 30 June 2011 for the agreements. The Government has also offered a sign-on bonus of $650 for eligible employees.

“This in-principle undertaking offers a fair and financially responsible pay increase for ACT public servants and will result in more practical, productive and workable enterprise agreements for the benefit of both government and employees,” Mr Stanhope said.

The Government and bargainers have also reached agreement on a number of important changes and initiatives that will provide for a fairer and more effective workplace, both now and in the future. For example, the provision of clear, simplified processes for dealing with workplace behaviour in the ACTPS will allow for the quicker amelioration of workplace issues.

They’ve also agreed to a raft of conditions:

    — grandparental leave – up to 52 weeks unpaid;
    — maternity leave – increased from 14 to 18 weeks paid;
    — primary care giver leave – increased from 14 to 18 weeks paid;
    — volunteering leave – 3 days paid for voluntary community service and 4 days paid for voluntary emergency leave;
    — bonding leave – increased from 5 to 10 days paid; and
    — enhanced scope to access dispute resolution provisions.
    — bereavement leave – increased from 3 to 5 days paid per occasion;
    — the adjustment of allowances by the percentage increases in pay;
    — the removal of youth wage classifications;
    — increases in vacation childcare program payments;
    — the use of Time Off in Lieu for absences below 1 day; and
    — the inclusion of Family and Community Day in the public holidays clause.

One wonders when any work will get done.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to Peace in our time – ACT PS pay dispute apparently over
Filter
Order
Bernard Bernard 2:34 pm 05 Jul 10

georgesgenitals said :

Bernard said :

georgesgenitals said :

Bernard said :

As a staunch Union supporter I have to comment how disappointed I am with this result.

Though to give the Unions their due, apparently the bulk of their members voted to accept the offer hence the lack of testicular fortitude does not appear to lie with those representing Public Servants.

Given Stanhope just gave his lads a 3.25% payrise on an average salary of $118,000 a year I personally don’t see why 2.5% plus a $650 “sign on bonus” (work it out, were it paid 1 July it still does not cover the backpay from April this year when the original agreement expired for anyone over an ASO 3) should be accepted by the ACT Public Service.

Didn’t Mr Stanhope comment that $118,000 wasn’t enough to attract quality participants in Canberra politics or some such? Does he not realise that the same holds true for the people the ACT Government employs in a town full of Commonwealth agencies who (in some cases) pay up to $10,000 more for equivalent positions?

As long as you’re happy to pay the additional rates, land taxes, vehicle rego, etc to fund this, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Hmmm just quietly, given the payrise as it stands doesn’t cover CPI… don’t Public Servants already have this problem?

The services etc you mentioned have gone up and ACT PS wages have not matched these increases.

Still doesn’t address why it’s ok for Stanhope et al. to get 3.25% against the people working for him getting 2.5%

Let’s go through this point by point:

1) Why should everyone get a payrise at or above CPI every year? ‘Going backwards’ is NOT the employers problem.
2) Under the new agreement pblic servants get a lot of extra benefits, as detailed in the list of conditions at the top of the thread.
3) If you would rather get 3.25% instead of 2.5%, go and get a job doing what the 3.25% people do. There’s nothing chaining you the your current role.

The employer/employee relationship boils down to a very simple premise: the employer pays what they think is reasonable for the employee, and the employee is free to accept it or leave. Of course, we have imposed some conditions in law to make this work a bit better, and I fully support these measures. But to suggest that it’s ‘not fair’ to get a payrise less than CPI, while still getting a bunch of additional benefits does not seem reasonable to me.

Finally Bernard, thanks for dicussing this sensibly rather than resorting to anger and name calling.

If I may provide my take on these points?

1) No reason that (from an employers perspective) they should get a payrise at or above CPI every year. My point however, was that Public Servants wouldn’t be worse off than they are now if they received a better payrise and the services you mentioned had a corresponding increase in price.

2) The benefits to which you refer aren’t necessarily benefits for everyone. I won’t list the ones which are of no use whatsoever to me, suffice it to say that better than half would be there. I’m sure I am not the only one who would prefer a different agreement.

3) I lack qualifications for the 3.25% job you refer to. I don’t have a rampant ego and as far as I can tell I have kept my soul intact. Seriously though, I agree there is nothing chaining anyone to their role. I think what burns Public Servants the most though, is that Stanhope feels he and his ilk are worth the extra money and the people doing the work on the ground are not… which returns to my original point where I ask why are the Ministers worth the extra and the PS are not, particularly when Stanhope said the increase in pay for his crew was to attract better participants?

I agree with you re the employer/employee relationship and as a tax payer and voter (hence one of Mr Stanhopes many employers) I don’t think he deserves that 3.25% in addition to the benefits he already has. Certainly a number of his offsiders don’t deserve it either. Be interested to know how many Canberrans from any line of work think they do.

Anger and name calling assist no one. I do enjoy a well thought out discussion however.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 12:14 pm 05 Jul 10

Bernard said :

georgesgenitals said :

Bernard said :

As a staunch Union supporter I have to comment how disappointed I am with this result.

Though to give the Unions their due, apparently the bulk of their members voted to accept the offer hence the lack of testicular fortitude does not appear to lie with those representing Public Servants.

Given Stanhope just gave his lads a 3.25% payrise on an average salary of $118,000 a year I personally don’t see why 2.5% plus a $650 “sign on bonus” (work it out, were it paid 1 July it still does not cover the backpay from April this year when the original agreement expired for anyone over an ASO 3) should be accepted by the ACT Public Service.

Didn’t Mr Stanhope comment that $118,000 wasn’t enough to attract quality participants in Canberra politics or some such? Does he not realise that the same holds true for the people the ACT Government employs in a town full of Commonwealth agencies who (in some cases) pay up to $10,000 more for equivalent positions?

As long as you’re happy to pay the additional rates, land taxes, vehicle rego, etc to fund this, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Hmmm just quietly, given the payrise as it stands doesn’t cover CPI… don’t Public Servants already have this problem?

The services etc you mentioned have gone up and ACT PS wages have not matched these increases.

Still doesn’t address why it’s ok for Stanhope et al. to get 3.25% against the people working for him getting 2.5%

Let’s go through this point by point:

1) Why should everyone get a payrise at or above CPI every year? ‘Going backwards’ is NOT the employers problem.
2) Under the new agreement pblic servants get a lot of extra benefits, as detailed in the list of conditions at the top of the thread.
3) If you would rather get 3.25% instead of 2.5%, go and get a job doing what the 3.25% people do. There’s nothing chaining you the your current role.

The employer/employee relationship boils down to a very simple premise: the employer pays what they think is reasonable for the employee, and the employee is free to accept it or leave. Of course, we have imposed some conditions in law to make this work a bit better, and I fully support these measures. But to suggest that it’s ‘not fair’ to get a payrise less than CPI, while still getting a bunch of additional benefits does not seem reasonable to me.

Finally Bernard, thanks for dicussing this sensibly rather than resorting to anger and name calling.

Bernard Bernard 11:13 am 05 Jul 10

georgesgenitals said :

Bernard said :

As a staunch Union supporter I have to comment how disappointed I am with this result.

Though to give the Unions their due, apparently the bulk of their members voted to accept the offer hence the lack of testicular fortitude does not appear to lie with those representing Public Servants.

Given Stanhope just gave his lads a 3.25% payrise on an average salary of $118,000 a year I personally don’t see why 2.5% plus a $650 “sign on bonus” (work it out, were it paid 1 July it still does not cover the backpay from April this year when the original agreement expired for anyone over an ASO 3) should be accepted by the ACT Public Service.

Didn’t Mr Stanhope comment that $118,000 wasn’t enough to attract quality participants in Canberra politics or some such? Does he not realise that the same holds true for the people the ACT Government employs in a town full of Commonwealth agencies who (in some cases) pay up to $10,000 more for equivalent positions?

As long as you’re happy to pay the additional rates, land taxes, vehicle rego, etc to fund this, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Hmmm just quietly, given the payrise as it stands doesn’t cover CPI… don’t Public Servants already have this problem?

The services etc you mentioned have gone up and ACT PS wages have not matched these increases.

Still doesn’t address why it’s ok for Stanhope et al. to get 3.25% against the people working for him getting 2.5%

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 9:21 am 05 Jul 10

Bernard said :

As a staunch Union supporter I have to comment how disappointed I am with this result.

Though to give the Unions their due, apparently the bulk of their members voted to accept the offer hence the lack of testicular fortitude does not appear to lie with those representing Public Servants.

Given Stanhope just gave his lads a 3.25% payrise on an average salary of $118,000 a year I personally don’t see why 2.5% plus a $650 “sign on bonus” (work it out, were it paid 1 July it still does not cover the backpay from April this year when the original agreement expired for anyone over an ASO 3) should be accepted by the ACT Public Service.

Didn’t Mr Stanhope comment that $118,000 wasn’t enough to attract quality participants in Canberra politics or some such? Does he not realise that the same holds true for the people the ACT Government employs in a town full of Commonwealth agencies who (in some cases) pay up to $10,000 more for equivalent positions?

As long as you’re happy to pay the additional rates, land taxes, vehicle rego, etc to fund this, it shouldn’t be a problem.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 9:20 am 05 Jul 10

colourful sydney racing identity said :

georgesgenitals said :

54-11 said :

What’s “bonding leave”?

Evidence that the union has too much power.

Funny – I would have thought that the 2.5% pay rise indicates that they don’t have nearly enough.

Did you not see all the other conditions?

Bernard Bernard 8:53 am 05 Jul 10

As a staunch Union supporter I have to comment how disappointed I am with this result.

Though to give the Unions their due, apparently the bulk of their members voted to accept the offer hence the lack of testicular fortitude does not appear to lie with those representing Public Servants.

Given Stanhope just gave his lads a 3.25% payrise on an average salary of $118,000 a year I personally don’t see why 2.5% plus a $650 “sign on bonus” (work it out, were it paid 1 July it still does not cover the backpay from April this year when the original agreement expired for anyone over an ASO 3) should be accepted by the ACT Public Service.

Didn’t Mr Stanhope comment that $118,000 wasn’t enough to attract quality participants in Canberra politics or some such? Does he not realise that the same holds true for the people the ACT Government employs in a town full of Commonwealth agencies who (in some cases) pay up to $10,000 more for equivalent positions?

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 2:39 pm 02 Jul 10

georgesgenitals said :

54-11 said :

What’s “bonding leave”?

Evidence that the union has too much power.

Funny – I would have thought that the 2.5% pay rise indicates that they don’t have nearly enough.

Thumper Thumper 1:50 pm 02 Jul 10

I would have pushed harder for “I’ve got a sick pet leave”

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 1:10 pm 02 Jul 10

What happened to the days when you took some annual leave to help out your wife when the new bub came home?

54-11 54-11 12:37 pm 02 Jul 10

Bloody ‘ell. Does that apply to new pups and kittens as well?

LG LG 9:00 am 02 Jul 10

54-11 said :

What’s “bonding leave”?

Supporting partner (non-primary care giver) after the birth / adoption of a new child (eg dad gets 10 days off to spend time with mum and new bub).

JessP JessP 8:08 am 02 Jul 10

Bonding leave is the leave for you to get used to the idea that the ACT overnment offered you a poor deal and your Union lost the will to keep on fighting for a better deal.

It is also the period of time you will use in the next 12 months looking for work outide the ACT government. In work time.

taninaus taninaus 6:59 am 02 Jul 10

54-11 said :

What’s “bonding leave”?

bonding with your new baby and helping out the new mum. That and the mat leave changes are great for those making babies.

a lot of fees are wage price index not cpi which makes it even worse – wage price index reflects the average wage increases across a number of industries (and I think includes some cpi measures as well) – it is seen as a better measure.

JB – you should have read some of the ambit claims for new awards in the 90’s they were hilarious – you truly could have legitimately never worked a day in your life taking all the leave, events and sick leave they proposed in those – undustrial relations was a fun game then.

bd84 bd84 9:30 pm 01 Jul 10

In-principle support with unions does not mean the collective agreements with ACTPS staff have been accepted as the 15+ agency agreements still have not been voted on by all staff. I would not be surprised if the agreements were not accepted when the collective agreement is voted on by all staff and non-union staff have their opportunity to vote.

sepi sepi 9:07 pm 01 Jul 10

I thought bonding leave would be for parents of newly adopted children. But then what is ‘primary carer leave’?

Ko. Ko. 7:47 pm 01 Jul 10

Paternity Leave.

2620watcher 2620watcher 7:12 pm 01 Jul 10

54-11 said :

What’s “bonding leave”?

4 mates, esky, car, heading to the coast. Surely thats what they mean?

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 6:53 pm 01 Jul 10

54-11 said :

What’s “bonding leave”?

Evidence that the union has too much power.

54-11 54-11 5:41 pm 01 Jul 10

What’s “bonding leave”?

CanberraCreative CanberraCreative 3:29 pm 01 Jul 10

Here’s hoping that declaration turns out better than it did for Neville Chamberlain.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site