By Afrodity Giannakis
Social Security members of the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) recently voted on the DSS "in-principle" agency bargaining agreement for 1995. Although the agreement was accepted on a national level, in NSW it was clearly rejected by the majority of members, with 995 (39%) votes in favour and 1556 (61%) against. The national result was quite close: 4467 (54%) were in favour and 3802 (46%) against.
There was particularly strong opposition in NSW, with certain regional offices, like Ashfield and Cabramatta, unanimously rejecting the agreement.
Motions were also passed that showed members' disillusionment with the union leadership. At the Liverpool Teleservice Centre, for example, a motion was carried stating, among other things, the members' belief that the executive had lost touch with members and should resign.
It was also interesting that the members of at least two regional offices requested the branch office to provide a copy of results of voting in relation to agency bargaining for all offices individually Australia-wide.
The mistrust of the union that was widely expressed by members during the process of the vote was well founded. There was an attempt by the union and DSS to rush members into voting before they could have sufficient opportunity to discuss and think about the proposed agreement.
At Liverpool Teleservice Centre, we were given very short notice about the impending vote. When the DSS and union representatives came to "sell" the document, they told us that we were to vote on it at the end of the day, because there had to be a quick decision. After some members voiced their objection, the delegates asked the two representatives for an extension, with the result that a second meeting was organised for the following week, for the purpose of voting.
Another concern was that the promotion of the "yes" case had been given considerable resources by the union officials. There were even allegations that supporters of the "no" case had been silenced. In addition, some union officials stated that the people against the agency deal were a very small minority, which was not true. (Incidentally, the same techniques were used with the PSU amalgamation vote a few months ago.)
In this climate, it was important that some members who were familiar with the draft agreement spoke up against it, as many people had not had enough time to read it and had been exposed only to the "yes" case.
At my workplace, the union representative did not take the voicing of opposition very well. This was especially obvious with comments like "Some people here are too negative".
It was clear all along that the DSS and union representatives were expecting to present their side, convince members unchallenged, put the draft to the vote and get it voted in, all in one day. This is obviously their idea of "consultation and cooperation" with members, which is mentioned in extremely abstract terms in the agreement.
In fact, a great number of points in the document are shockingly abstract and open to interpretation. There are hardly any safeguards to ensure staff rights. As a union member put it when asked if it was the fine print that worried him: "It's not the fine print I find worrying, but the absence of it".
In fact, there is some fine print, which was not presented to us. In the agreement are references to appendices, which were not shown in the copies we had access to!
It is claimed in the agreement that one of its objectives is to "develop and pursue changes on a cooperative continuing basis by using a consultative approach". It is not specified how this will be achieved and how members will be guaranteed fair participation in decision making. It isn't even made clear who is going to cooperate and consult with whom.
It is also stated that the agreement aims to "promote better jobs and secure employment". However, there are too many points in the document that contradict this vague statement.
The agreement is based on the principle of giving a 3% rise in two lots (2% and 1%) (No, it's not a misprint!) over 18 months "in recognition of the contribution of employees to ongoing improvements in the productivity, efficiency and flexibility of the Department of Social Security and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the agreed measures set out in Attachment A to be implemented through this Agreement".
The rise is to be financed by "the gains from improved productivity and changes in the workplace". This means selling conditions for the pitiable rise of 2% plus 1%. Here is a sample of what DSS employees stand to lose:
There is no longer any provision that guarantees the right of NSW members to paid union meetings.
The proportion of Administrative Service Officer 2 positions (the second lowest classification in the public service administrative scale) is set to increase.
Managers will be allowed "greater flexibility in maximising and regulating employee attendance" — i.e. more power will be given to management with regard to flex-time provisions.
A joint working party (JWP) is to be established to review the DSS Job Redesign Agreement (1989), which is part of the Second Tier Wage Agreement (STWA). There is nothing in the agreement to indicate that the JWP has to consult members for the implementation of changes to the STWA.
A striking omission in the document is how the pay rise is going to be financed. What do they exactly mean by "improvements in productivity, efficiency and flexibility"? What kinds of cuts are DSS employees (and clients?) in for?
This is great cause for concern, especially in the light of the resources crisis within DSS, which is an issue currently taken up by DSS staff.
What is even more worrying is that job cuts are not ruled out in the parent agency bargaining agreement, which states that there will be "no arbitrary job cuts": the interpretation of "arbitrary" is clearly open to abuse. Provisions of this kind in the agency bargaining documents refute any claims that the agreement aims to "promote better jobs and secure employment".