Thursday, September 21, 2017

CPSU on the front foot in Enterprise Bargaining

20 September 2017
University of Sydney Enterprise Bargaining update
Dear University of Sydney staff colleagues
On Tuesday 12 September, after close of business, the university revised the Enterprise Agreement offer previously announced to the university staff, and it contacted the CPSU NSW seeking a response.
The offer regarding salary included a flat-rate component. It involved a $500 salary up-lift (a flat-rate pay rise of $500) for HEO levels 1-5 (Professional Staff) and for Academic Levels A and B in July 2018, while deducting the $500 sign-on bonus the university had agreed to pay all staff.


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Enterprise Bargaining Members Update


The CPSU NSW negotiating team met with UTS HR Management for Bargaining Meeting 6 on August 29, after the scheduled meeting on 23rd August was cancelled (by UTS management) when the two unions arrived for negotiations.

Both unions have tabled half their clauses and are waiting on a response from UTS management. The Academics and the CPSU NSW are both adamant regarding a Joint Consultative Committee clause. As we both tabled different JCC clauses, we were all ready to negotiate these into the one clause. Most Universities in NSW have Consultative Committees and the Public Service of NSW does also. Management have continually said no to a JCC as they argue they already consult in various circumstances, with specific communications around things such as workplace change. The CPSU NSW argues that a forum such as a JCC would cover all issues on campus that will affect all employees, not continually “putting out spot fires”. This would benefit all parties.

Bargaining Meeting 7 was held on the 12th of September. The University is proposing that Internships, filled by students become paid positions, with supervision, development plans and feedback. The CPSU NSW said these Internships should be brought into the Enterprise Agreement with a clause constructed and pay rates listed in a Schedule. The University has agreed to work on the wording for this clause. UTS has also proposed:

· Clause 33.5, Paid Parental Leave. A change to “Primary Carer” which will mean no medical evidence is needed to prove that the female parent is unable to care for the child. Can be either parent as primary carer.

· Clause 34, Community Leave. NAIDOC week. Increase the days from 1 day to 5, even though the additional days could, in the present Agreement, be accessed through Personal Leave.

· Clause 35, Domestic Violence Leave. UTS said they will get rid of the requirement for evidence documents, but will not increase the days from 5 days. The CPSU NSW pointed out the word “paid” is absent from this clause and UTS has agreed to put this into the Agreement.

· The CPSU NSW is also waiting for a response regarding our new clause and an allowance (in the Schedule) for Health and Safety Representatives elected by their work colleagues.

The CPSU NSW still wants further work to be done in regard to Misconduct. We would like clear definitions of Misconduct and Serious Misconduct in the Agreement.

Our next Enterprise Bargaining meeting will be held on Tuesday October 3rd. Please note, CPSU NSW members are also members of the Public Service Association of NSW. The PSA is the Associated Body for, and resources and manages, the CPSU NSW

JOIN the CPSU NSW on Facebook at www.facebook.com/CPSUnsw

http://psa.asn.au/






Monday, September 18, 2017

Australian workers $100 billion worse off

Dear Friend,

$100 billion.

That’s how much a new report this morning estimated would be lost from Australians' superannuation thanks to wage theft, wage freezes, reduced penalty rates and cancelled workplace agreements.

That’s $100 billion working people won’t have to draw on in their retirement, $100 billion we won’t have to invest in important job-creating infrastructure projects - like train stations and airports.

While we are fighting inequality by arguing we need to change the rules for working people so we get fair pay rises and secure jobs, the Turnbull Government is coming after working people, their unions and now your superannuation.

We told you last week about the new laws the government wants to introduce that will allow big business, the Minister, and even lobbyists to interfere in who can run a union, and thousands of you flooded the crossbench Senators with messages of support to block the bill. This bill has not been voted on yet, and your lobbying is making a difference, but there is more to do.

The government has also come up with a new plan to let the big banks get their hands on our super. Malcolm Turnbull is proposing new laws that open the door to the big banks. It is letting the fox into the hen house.

The Turnbull Government is stepping up their attacks on working people. They’re cutting wages through penalty rate cuts, trying to curtail the role of unions to deliver wage growth, and now they are attacking our retirement savings.

So we need you to hit up the crossbench again.

The message is clear. Australia needs a pay rise, not new laws that give big banks more power and make it harder for working people to improve their pay and conditions.

These bills could be voted on when Parliament comes back in four weeks’ time. So we have four weeks to tell key Senators to stop the attacks on working people, these bills need to go.

Senators for South Australia

Nick Xenophon
Stirling Griff
Skye Kakoschke-Moore

Lucy Gichuhi

Senator for Western Australia

Peter Georgiou

Senators for Queensland

Pauline Hanson

Malcolm Roberts

Senators for New South Wales

David Leyonhjelm

Brian Burston

Senator for Victoria

Derryn Hinch

Senator for Tasmania

Jacqui Lambie


In unity,

Sally McManus

ACTU Secretary

PS. We know sending messages to the crossbenchers on their social media accounts really works. They follow the comments closely, and sometimes they even respond personally.




http://www.australianunions.org.au/

Monday, September 4, 2017

The costs of a casual job are now outweighing any pay benefits


Joshua Healy, University of Melbourne and Daniel Nicholson, University of Melbourne
Low wages growth has been a spectre hanging around the Australian economy for some time. In our series What We Earn we unpick the causes for this and why some workers might be feeling it more than others.

Workers aren’t being compensated as much as they should be for precarious work in casual positions.
One in four Australian employees today is a casual worker. Among younger workers (15-24 year olds) the numbers are higher still: more than half of them are casuals.
These jobs come without some of the benefits of permanent employment, such as paid annual holiday leave and sick leave. In exchange for giving up these entitlements, casual workers are supposed to receive a higher hourly rate of pay – known as a casual “loading”.
But the costs of casual work are now outweighing the benefits in wages.

Costs and benefits of casual work

Casual jobs offer flexibility, but also come with costs. For workers, apart from missing out on paid leave, there are other compromises: less predictable working hours and earnings, and the prospect of dismissal without notice. Uncertainty about their future employment can hinder casual workers in other ways, such as making family arrangements, getting a mortgage, and juggling education with work.
Not surprisingly, casual workers have lower expectations about keeping their current job. For example the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found 19% expect to leave their job within 12 months, compared to 7% of other workers. Casuals are also much less likely to get work-related training, which limits their opportunities for skills development.
The employers of casual workers also face higher costs. High staff turnover adds to recruitment costs. But perhaps the main cost is the “loading” that casual workers are supposed to be paid on top of their ordinary hourly wage.
Australia’s system of minimum wage awards specifies a casual loading of 25%. So, a casual worker paid under an award should get 25% more for each hour than another worker doing the same job on a permanent basis. In enterprise agreements, the casual loading varies by sector, but tends to be between 15 and 25%.
The practice of paying a casual loading developed for two reasons. One was to provide some compensation for workers missing out on paid leave. The other, quite different, motivation was to make casual employment more expensive and discourage excessive use of it. However this disincentive has not prevented the casual sector of the workforce from growing substantially.

Casual jobs aren’t much better paid

One approach in determining whether casual workers are paid more is simply to compare the hourly wages of casual and “non-casual” (permanent and fixed-term) employees in the same occupations. This can be done using data from the 2016 ABS Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours.
We compared median hourly wages for adult non-managerial employees, based on their ordinary earnings and hours of work (i.e. excluding overtime payments). If the median wage for casuals is higher than for non-casuals, there is a casual premium. If the median casual wage is lower, there is a penalty.
The 10 occupations below accounted for over half of all adult casual workers in 2016. In most of these occupations, there is a modest casual wage premium - in the order of 4-5%.

The size of the typical casual wage premium is much smaller, in most cases, than the loadings written into awards and agreements. Only one occupation (school teachers) has a premium (22%) in line with what might be expected.
Three of the 10 largest casual occupations actually penalise this sort of work. And overall for these 10 occupations there is a casual wage penalty of 5%. This method of analysis suggests that few casual workers enjoy substantially higher wages as a trade-off for paid leave.
Taking a closer look involves controlling for a wider range of differences between casual and non-casual workers. One major Australian study in 2005 compared wages after taking account of many factors other than occupation, including age, education, job location, and employer size.
All else equal, it found that part-time, casual workers do receive an hourly wage premium over full-time, permanent workers. The premium is worth around 10%, on average, for men and between 4 and 7% for women.
These results imply that most casual workers (who are in part-time positions) can expect to receive higher hourly wages than comparable employees in full-time, permanent positions. However, the value of the benefit is again found to be less than would be expected, given the larger casual loadings mentioned in awards and agreements.
It seems that while there is some short-term financial benefit to being a casual worker, this advantage is worth less in practice than on paper.
A recent study, using 14 years of data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA), finds no evidence of any long-term pay benefit for casual workers.
The study’s authors estimate that, among men, there is an average casual wage penalty of 10% - the opposite of what we should see if casual loadings fully offset the foregone leave and insecurity of casual jobs. Among female casual workers, there is also a wage penalty, but this is smaller, at around 4%.
This study also finds that the size of the negative casual wage effect tends to reduce over time for individual workers, bringing them closer to equality with permanent workers. But very few casual workers out-earn permanent workers in the long-term.

Inferior jobs, but fewer alternatives

The evidence on hourly wage differences leads us to conclude that casual workers are not being adequately compensated for the lack of paid leave, or for other forms of insecurity they face. This makes casual jobs a less appealing option for workers.
This does not mean that all casual workers dislike their jobs – indeed, many are satisfied. But a clear-eyed look at what these jobs pay suggests their benefits are skewed in favour of employers.
Despite this, the choice for many workers - especially young jobseekers - is increasingly between a casual job or no job at all. Half of employed 15-24 year olds are in casual jobs.
The ConversationIn a labour market characterised by high underemployment and intensifying job competition, young people with little or no work experience are understandably willing to make some sacrifices to get a start in the workforce. The option of “holding out” for a permanent job looks increasingly risky as these opportunities dwindle.
Joshua Healy, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Workplace Leadership, University of Melbourne and Daniel Nicholson, Research Assistant, Industrial Relations, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

FWC terminates Murdoch University’s Enterprise Agreement

FWC terminates Murdoch University’s Enterprise Agreement – August 2017 (PDF version)

On Tuesday the Fair Work Commission (FWC) issued its decision approving the application by Murdoch University to terminate its enterprise agreement. This is a significant development in the trend by the FWC supporting employers’ attacks against their employees.

Why did this happen?

Primarily because the rules are broken in a way that encourages a litigious approach to strip power from employees and their bargaining position. After decades of enterprise bargaining in this sector, where agreement after agreement have seen improvements to wage and conditions, this should never have happened.
The FWC decision makes an interesting read in its rationale for approving the application to terminate the enterprise agreement. The following factors were some of the key drivers in the FWC’s decision.
  • Murdoch University claimed it is facing significant financial strain with growing operating deficits forecast for the next few years
  • So called ‘productivity’ was seen by the FWC and Murdoch University to be reduced due to ‘onerous’ clauses such as academic misconduct committees, academic performance committees, review panels for academic redundancies, lengthy change management procedures, and high levels of annual leave accruals (40 days) before directing employees to take their leave with six months’ notice for academics
  • Bargaining was considered to have been going for a long time with 28 meetings and ongoing industrial action
  • Murdoch University successfully ran a case against the NTEU for publishing a member update that was misleading, with the FWC finding it was a breach of good faith bargaining (CPSU in WA and United Voice were not part of these negotiations)
  • FWC cited a six-month commitment by the university to maintain salaries, superannuation, leave entitlements, redundancy payments, severance payment for fixed-term employees.
There are some key differences between professional staff employment and academic conditions. Professional staff have overtime, penalty rates for evenings and weekends, allowances for shift workers, and compensation for each hour of work performed. These all help manage workloads for professional staff so things like lengthy workload clauses with committees are not a high priority.
If Murdoch had been operating under separate enterprise agreements for professional staff and academics, it is very possible the Professional Staff Agreement would have been in position to be signed before this trouble occurred over what would have been the Academic Enterprise Agreement.
Until recently, while a new enterprise agreement was under negotiations, the existing enterprise agreement was always considered to stay in place until a new agreement was finalised and accepted by a majority of staff who vote. At Murdoch University management was intent on bringing about a range of reductions in staff conditions.
FWC’s decision to terminate the existing enterprise agreement changes everything in the negotiation process. The deadline of six months made by the university as an undertaking means staff will move onto the National Employment Standards and the Higher Education General Staff Modern Award if an agreement is not made within that time. This has changed the employment relationship massively in favour of the university. For NSW universities, the mere threat of this will help shift the goal posts in favour of the employers.

What does this mean for professional staff in NSW?

It is important that:
  • Professional staff JOIN the CPSU NSW (PSA), the Professional Staff Union to ensure you have a strong voice to fight for professional staff issues
  • Current enterprise agreement negotiations are not unnecessarily delayed through claims that we reasonably believe will not succeed
  • Staff support the CPSU NSW claims for separate enterprise agreements for professional staff so that only professional staff can negotiate and vote on their pay and conditions, and so that we are not embroiled in academic industrial matters unless we choose to be so.
Talk to your colleagues, family, friends and neighbours about why the rules are broken, and why we need to Change the Rules to prevent employers taking power from employees who negotiate wages and conditions in enterprise agreements.
Employees should not be held to ransom over pay rises and conditions that were built over years and years of bargaining for enterprise agreements. The ‘safety net’ of the Higher Education General Staff Modern Award comes from a very low base and this should not be seen as the acceptable alternative.
Please note, CPSU NSW members are also members of the Public Service Association of NSW. The PSA is the Associated Body for, and resources and manages, the CPSU NSW, the Professional Staff Union.
http://www.facebook.com/CPSUnsw

Update and Connect with the PSA

If you have moved home or work location, or you have changed your contacts, please update your membership details HERE.

Authorised by Stewart Little, General Secretary, Public Service Association of NSW, 160 Clarence Street Sydney
Please do not reply to this email address. The PSANews email account is not monitored.
For membership inquiries, please email membership@psa.asn.au

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

University of Technology Sydney Enterprise Bargaining


Member’s update: Meeting number 4.



The CPSU met again with UTS HR Management and the NTEU on 4 July for the 4th Enterprise Agreement negotiation.

The CPSU presented and spoke to “General Conditions” section in our Log of Claims, numbers 21 through to 31. The NTEU presented draft clauses for:

1. Fixed Term Employment – the CPSU’s position is to improve the process of converting fixed term and casual professional staff to continuing employment status. We say that if the position or role continues after 12 months it is a continuing position and conversion to permanent continuing employment should take place (as long as the applicant is merit selected). Not after 3 years, which is in the present Agreement and which the NTEU have not documented for change. They did agree with CPSU proposal of 12 months (then conversion), when discussions took place during bargaining.

2. Managing Change clause – the CPSU is still insisting that if we had a Joint Consultative Committee, it would benefit all unions and bosses, as there would be a forum to discuss all workplace changes and restructures within the University. The NTEU has also proposed the benefits of having a JCC clause in the EBA, by presenting a clause for this purpose.

3. Disciplinary clauses – the CPSU has asked for the inclusion of the definition of “misconduct” and “serious misconduct”. We will revise Clause 54 to 56, which is Part F – Discipline, in the UTS Professional Staff Agreement during our next CPSU pre-bargaining team meeting. Both unions will look at wording in this section of the EBA.

The CPSU presented a new Clause (26) for Health and Safety Representatives in the workplace, democratically elected by their workgroup. We say that HSR’s should have an Allowance, under Schedule 4 in the EBA comparative to the First Aid Allowance, adjusted annually, in line with the First Aid Allowance.

The CPSU can also provide training for HSR’s.

UTS management will be bringing the manager of Work Health and Safety to the next negotiations meeting to respond to the CPSU’s HSR clause.

The next meeting with UTS will be held on the 25 July 2017. It will be EBA Negotiation meeting number 5.


  • Now more than ever it is vital for UTS Professional staff to join together to stand up for your rights, if you are not already a member join today
  • (https://membership.psa.asn.au/join/)