sh_wulff

Aussies LXV - what choices have we?!

402 posts in this topic

Religious fanatics give me the shits. :bang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a bit of a drive-by post to point and laugh at Turnbull's attempts to defend the changes to the citizenship test. What a joke.

In some personal news, some of you will be pleased to know that I've finally ditched financial sector regulation and am now working at NSW Dept of Family & Community Services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paxter said:

Just a bit of a drive-by post to point and laugh at Turnbull. What a joke.

In some personal news, some of you will be pleased to know that I've finally ditched financial sector regulation and am now working at NSW Dept of Family & Community Services.

FTFY. You could add in Tones as well though.

How's the new workplace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha fair call K. 

Liking it so far! I'm only two weeks in. The people are great and it's pretty interesting work; I'm working on foster care reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So now we have the Family First Senator Bernardi Party.

Can we call it the FFS Bernardi Party?

Edited by Stubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First we had a Family First senator (Gichuhi) and an independent defector (Bernardi). Now we have a Family First senator (Bernardi) and an independent defector (Gichuhi).

As Albo said: "1+1=1"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 2:14 PM, Paxter said:

As Albo said: "1+1=1"

That's the kind of maths South Australia have applied to their electricity network. Great stuff.

I like the FFS Cory party. Brings up images of a kid who is always left saying "what did I do" as everyone walks away.

How is working for a government department? I understand wage growth in the public service is increasing faster than outside and the hours and flexibility are great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎28‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 11:50 AM, Squab said:

How is working for a government department? I understand wage growth in the public service is increasing faster than outside and the hours and flexibility are great. 

I worked for a Federal Government authority for the past five years and we faced either salary freezes or small salary increases below inflation for all of those years. I wouldn't say that that is better or worse than the private sector. The hours were pretty good (less than a forty-hour week), but I was also earning significantly less than an equivalent job in the private sector. It comes down to life priorities I guess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 9:23 AM, Paxter said:

I worked for a Federal Government authority for the past five years and we faced either salary freezes or small salary increases below inflation for all of those years. I wouldn't say that that is better or worse than the private sector. The hours were pretty good (less than a forty-hour week), but I was also earning significantly less than an equivalent job in the private sector. It comes down to life priorities I guess!

ABS figures show public sector wages increasing faster than private. Do you know if it is certain parts of the public service, like everyone above a certain pay grade or certain departments?

I have a friend who is a teacher/department head at a public high school and has said it is very hard manage poor performers as there is no chance of anyone losing their job over performance issues. Does that translate to other departments too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Squab said:

ABS figures show public sector wages increasing faster than private. Do you know if it is certain parts of the public service, like everyone above a certain pay grade or certain departments?

I have a friend who is a teacher/department head at a public high school and has said it is very hard manage poor performers as there is no chance of anyone losing their job over performance issues. Does that translate to other departments too?

I assume those figures cover both State and Federal public servants - I can only speak for the latter. The State system is more heavily unionised and employees are in a better bargaining position to win real pay increases than their Federal counterparts. I also assume those figures don't cover bonuses. In the sector I worked in (finance), bonuses are a significant part of private sector remuneration packages.

Job security has always been an attractive part of the public service and it's one of the main reasons that public servants often accept significantly lower salaries than they would receive in the private sector. Personally I don't consider it an important part of my employment proposition - flexibility is far more valuable to me.

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the statistics show that public service wages have risen more over the last 3 years than private sector does not mean public service jobs pay more. The rises for both shown in that link are abnormally low, so Pax's comment about them being low over that time frame is accurate. Change over time does not indicate absolute value, I also work in a place with better leave benefits but lower than industry standard pay.

Those statistics alone provide very little information, particularly looking at only a single year snapshot. For example I looked back through the last 5 years and private sector wages were growing more than public sector up until September 2013 - after that it flips. I know there was an election then, and it seems quite unusual that public sector would go up more than private under The Coalition rather than ALP, so there definitely seems more to this story. I'm not going to look into the details of how the statistics are calculated, I probably couldn't even follow it, but one potential partial explanation: They're using salary averages to determine wage increases, if you cause a bunch of job losses at the bottom end (through efficiency dividends) there will be a greater proportion of executive etc salaries skewing the data, making it look like wages have gone up when you've actually effectively fired the poorly paid staff.

The ABS itself is one of the departments that's been cut to the bone and their performance has suffered in recent years as a result.

As to the job security thing - its a pretty standard talking point. I work in a well protected workplace here, I've worked under at-will Employment in the US. Sure employers would love to be able to fire someone on the spot for no reason like they can there, but that doesn't mean we should let them. There is a process for firing people here that can be used if they actually need to be removed. If the manager can't be bothered doing the work to fire someone that's on them, I'd rather have proper employee protections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, Paxter said:

I assume those figures cover both State and Federal public servants - I can only speak for the latter. The State system is more heavily unionised and employees are in a better bargaining position to win real pay increases than their Federal counterparts. I also assume those figures don't cover bonuses. In the sector I worked in (finance), bonuses are a significant part of a remuneration package in the private sector.

Job security has always been an attractive part of the public service and it's one of the main reasons that public servants often accept significantly lower salaries than they would receive in the private sector. Personally I don't consider it an important part of my employment proposition - flexibility is far more valuable to me.

FYI from the FAQ: The wage price indexes encompass cash payments to employees and include ordinary time earnings, overtime earnings, bonuses, together with the value of any salary sacrificed - Having read that though I don't think the numbers I linked do include bonuses. FAQ more confusing than stats.

Although the security sounds good, I can see where frustration in dealing with the public service may come from if poor performers are protected.

Edited by Squab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Squab said:

FYI from the FAQ: The wage price indexes encompass cash payments to employees and include ordinary time earnings, overtime earnings, bonuses, together with the value of any salary sacrificed

Thanks for that. That means the data doesn't include non-cash payments, like employee stock options. ESOs are a major form of bonus pay in the finance sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...budget week. Anyone care? The fact that any material housing affordability reforms have been ruled out reduces my personal interest to nearly zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm a bit meh on the budget as well.  Turnbull will likely put in place some measures as a sop to Abbott's fucknuts and tinker with everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like apprehension rather than excitement. I'm half expecting this to be as awful as hockey's first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Budget? Meh.

Eurovision? WTF are we doing there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Invalid Date at 2:31 PM, karaddin said:

More like apprehension rather than excitement. I'm half expecting this to be as awful as hockey's first one.

With a couple of notable exceptions (the welfare reforms, the uni fee changes), this easily could have been an ALP budget in the end.

A minor victory (although I do feel sorry for the children affected):

Quote

Parents who don't vaccinate their children will lose about $28 per child per fortnight.

 In total, the Federal Government expects to withhold about $66 million worth of payments.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Paxter said:

With a couple of notable exceptions (the welfare reforms, the uni fee changes), this easily could have been an ALP budget in the end.

I agree with the exceptions but would add more. I think an alp budget would have been quite different and all but abolished negative gearing, reintroduced a carbon price, increased welfare funding, increased funding to schools, universities and TAFE, introduced a banking royal commission, and increased taxes on big business and 'the rich'. Bill shorten was on tv this morning deriding each part of the budget as misdirected or not going far enough. I think a labor budget would have gone a lot further and more accurate might be "labor-lite" as former alp press secretary Barrie Cassidy has described it. IMHO its a safe budget hence, meh.

Not much of an observation to say Turnbull is trying to occupy the centre ground, whether on purpose or that's who he is, I dunno. Bill Shorten will be pushed further left which cuts into the greens agenda. The Greens think they will grow and the only place I can see is into the alp base. How do you guys on the left see this resolving?

To the right of Turnbull, Nats will play to their base and maybe steal some of disaffected conservatives. PHON will shoot themselves in the foot with a gun loaded by Ashby and shot by Pauline whose final quote will be 'please explain' much to the delight of the left wing press who will have done much of Turnbulls work for him against her. Cory will have a fight on his hands to stay a senator against Lucy Gichuhi and NXT at the next election and, as shown by the FF debacle, isn't as competent as he would like to think. Barring major gaffes and/or Abbott, I expect a bit of a minor jump for Turnbull in the polls which will go down after time with continued sniping and infighting. SNAFU in the end. Not much of a change. Meh.

I cant believe you weren't interested in Eurovision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.