Honestly, so much of the public sector is tired and burnt out.
Wages have fallen behind, while we’ve seen massive cost of living increases. To add insult to injury, Pollies wages have continued to increase.
Workloads have increased massively and are in many cases unsustainable. Staff burnt the candle at both ends through covid only to be met with insufficient wage increases and a forced return to work in offices putting many at health risks for what seemed to be a move to support the business lobby. Many experienced public servants left, some got long covid. Any fat from the public sector was trimmed decades ago, with lowering of FTE caps from the previous government of the day.
Staff are leaving left right and centre, some going to private, many are leaving or reducing hours with physical symptoms of stress and burnout.
This creates a viscous cycle where less staff = unsustainable workloads = less staff.
This is not happening to ‘rich fat cats in luxury roles’ but to hardworking people in front line and key services. Nurses, teachers, child protection, community services, transport etc.
We can’t keep plugging the gaps through good will. We’re tired and burnt out and need adequate resources. Our wages have gone backwards so much the public sector isn’t competitive anymore.
Not to mention the demands of life have increased. The 8 hour day was designed around 8 hours rest, 8 hours work and 8 hours leisure. Who TF is getting 8 hours leisure? Most families are both folks working and home time is just second shift. The city is so spread out that a lot of folks have a 1-2 hour commute every day on top of work and family responsibilities.
Even a generous wage offer isn’t going to suddenly make the public sector competitive after years of cuts. A 4 day work week trial would both relieve some level of stress and burnout and increase attraction and retention. All without losing our fucking budget surplus.
In a way government provides a baseline around which private sets their pay levels to. Government pays less, private gets to pay less for the same standard.
Pay peanuts get monkeys, which has been the government for the last 10-15 years.
People are burnt out and done. Give them something more than inflation. Something that'll actually enable them to buy a house.
>Our wages have gone backwards so much the public sector isn’t competitive anymore.
Really? Doing the same job in the PS will net me a 20k increase, more work from home, better super, additional leave and the option to buy more leave. Needless to say, I'm planning on jumping ship.
I can't image much public support for this, outside of for nurses. Hope it gets up though.
Downvote me all you want public servants but it's fact that the PS outstrips private in both benefits and salary in my field, until you're late career at least.
May I ask which industry are you in? Are you younger? Public service pay is traditionally more competitive at lower levels, but this doesn’t last once you move up to more experienced roles. Just because your specific job might be more well paid, doesn’t negate the fact the the overall decline in wages growth has made the sector uncompetitive as whole because career development leads to wages being behind private industry long term. Ie a junior role might be paid worse in private sector initially, but longer term, will lead to career opportunities with much higher wages. If my husband moved to the public sector in his field his wage would drop by at least a third, if not more.
Not to discourage you of course. Best of luck in applying! Look up STAR guidelines for applications if you haven’t already!
Good to be aware the WA public servants don’t get any more super than is the legal requirement- you might be thinking of local or commonwealth government. And WFH is not a given and can vary a lot depending on your organisation and management. I’ve not seen anyone approved for more than 2 days, but YMMV.
25-30 age bracket working in policy. Early in the journey though as I underwent a career change via uni.
Thanks for the information, seems to largely align with what I'd already gathered so far. Still think 3-5 years public and then back to private might be the way forward for me.
Re 2 days WFH - that's a dream. Currently wasting 2.5hrs + a day on commute. PS office locations tend to be better as well from what I can see.
Good luck! Austrade is Federal Government- that’s why you’re thinking more super. This article is for WA State Government- different remuneration and award :-)
Sorry, my comments were unclear. I'm aware of the difference between the two as I've applied for both APS and State previously. Both are still better than I'm likely to earn staying private in the short to midterm. Thank you sharing, though. :)
Sadly I agree there won't be a lot of public support, mainly because in my experience people would rather we all be miserable together than seeing one work group get something nice that can be a roadmap to how we all get that nice thing.
Surely public sector proving a 4 day workweek can be done would be a massive step forward in negotiations across the board (i.e. for private to remain competitive they'd have to match it)
Yeah, that's how I view it also. It's a bit of a joke that for all our technical advancements I still have to sit behind a desk and look busy for 6-12 hours per week even when I've usually completed everything or can't proceed without a response from somebody else.
Maybe true for grads and entry level roles but across many sectors where you have 2-3+ years experience, the pay crosses and strongly diverges thereon.
To put it in perspective, I worked a full time retail sales job (including commission) and moved to a PS adjacent role about 15 years ago (about Level 5), and took a pay cut in a the process.
I took it for the hours - Mon to Fri, but to take my relevant uni degrees into a decent, mid-level office gig from a minimum wage + comms retail sales role and take a pay cut was a choice I made.
Not everyone in the public sector is Class 1 or CEO band.
I think the government agreeing to a 4 day work week is a pipe dream, at least any time soon.
Maybe a 9 day fortnight might be a easier proposal to get accepted.
But a wage increase in line with inflation more than make sense
The union weren't asking to be given a 4 day work week immediately. As part of the deal that was proposed, it included a trial of a 4 day work week. The government flat out rejected a trial without even an attempt to compromise like suggesting a trial of a 9 day fortnight.
The issue the union have is that not only did the government massively delay releasing the new draft agreement, certain parts of it like the 4 day work week trial were flat out rejected with no explanation given
Labor have completely forgotten they're meant to be the party of the working man. Maybe at some point they'd like to remember that and start acting like it
> It's not better and does not fix any problems
You do you, losing our 9 day fortnight's are probably the only thing that'd get my entire department on strike.
I worked in a public sector office,everyone did the 9 day fortnight and didn't bother doing the extra hour of work, no one kept tabs. Many would take almost every Friday off because no one kept tabs on which Friday was your friday off. Combine that with flexi time (start anytime between 7 and 9, finish between 4 and 6) people would use that to come in at 9 and leave at 4, lol. Add in half hour coffee breaks twice a day, 1.5hr lunch breaks, I didn't feel like they were working very hard for their money. Lol
It's never going to get anywhere if the government don't take the lead.
Most people who've tried working four longer days for the fifth day off are more productive *and* happier. It makes a huge difference to quality of life.
Honestly, in that model the hours should be irrelevant. I'd have loved pay-for-productivity when I was a public servant; I regularly did the work of multiple people.
You know what else makes productivity go up? All those advances in technology in the last 40 or so years. Virtually every single person on the planet is more productive than their counterparts were 40 years ago. So why do we continue to delude ourselves that working the same hours as our counterparts, for (relative to COL anyway) less pay for the same number of hours is in any way, shape or form a good deal?
I have no doubt productivity goes up even in an undesirable compromise of 5 days of work squeezed into 4. But why this arbitrary obsession with 40 hours? While there are some jobs where productivity is inherently tied to hours, most office-based workers could easily work 32 hours and still be infinitely more productive than their counterparts of 40 years ago.
The only reason for the push of 40 hours into 4 days as opposed to a full reduction in hours in a lot of cases is employer greed. I don't see how we've advanced so much as a society yet we're tied to this arbitrary, century-old concept of "you must work 40 hours a week or you're a grub"
I'm deeply fascinated at the way that technology is still marketed as being great for productivity and making work lives easier.
History shows time and again that all that happens is that workers are expected to have more output, not that hours go down.
Yeah I don't know why more people don't get angry that rather than using technology to be more efficient and therefore work less we instead got punished for that efficiency by being forced to work the same amount of hours and just do more
Productivity went up in the few industries that trialed it (mostly creative fields like marketing)
A job that's customer facing or fixing/building something will need to employ an extra person to fill the role (unless we shut down public services on Fridays)
In some roles yes. But for front-line staff they're basically going to be running the same workload with fewer people on-deck. Unless they hire more staff, which gets hella expensive
The government employees only do maximum 3 days a week work as it is - being employed full-time. They know how the system works. They are the long time employees who have only worked for the government and never experienced private companies with employment.
There are thousands and thousands of contractors in the government, who don’t get the gov employee benefits. And shit pay. And conditions.
Not claiming to have the answer, just this is the normal playbook.
The right wing mouthpiece is struggling to use credible talking points atm (especially since the redic nuclear plan)... they'd love to run with this
While I very much agree, I hate how Labor at both state and federal level are a bunch of pussies. Conservative media will try to undermine them regardless of what they do, so why are they consistently bringing lukewarm policy to the table in an attempt to appease them?
Just once, I'd love a radical Labor government to just show everyone a good time. Fuck it give the public sector a 4 day workweek. Give public sector workers a pay rise. Properly fund education and healthcare.
Then when the Liberals predictably campaign on "we can't have a good time we're gonna remove all that" throw all decorum out the window. They play dirty, so do we. Run a campaign of "lol you have great pay, more time off work and a better funded education and healthcare system. No no by all means vote for the party that's gonna cut your wages, force you back into work and fuck your schools and hospitals over"
The public sector union is negotiating for 60 hours and getting paid your current salary. Let’s not say getting paid for 75 hours (public servants do 75 a fortnight not 76), because that implies that people are productive for that long and they want to just get the pay without the work
Without losing productivity, is the important part. The same workload without the obligation to be there for an extra 7.5 hours a week that burns people out and reduces their productivity.
Most companies that trial this for office work find productivity overall *improves*, which indicates that working hours to work output is not a straight line.
You’re at work for fewer hours, but you are still doing the work.
>Most companies that trial this for office work
Plenty of "creative" companies like advertising, marketing and PR. tried that. The only government [who did a long term trial was Iceland. ](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-15/four-day-week-iceland-success-too-good-to-be-true/100293538)After the trial , they stuck with the 5 day week.
[There was a range of companies that trialled it in Australia](https://4dayweek.io/country/australia#:~:text=4%20Day%20Work%20Week%20in,Australian%20employees%20were%20accustomed%20to.) including companies in industries like Professional Services, Finance and Manufacturing.
I’m sure I don’t need to explain that a lot of government jobs are effectively professional services lol
If they are currently sitting on their arse 20% of the time it's a management failure. They can't simultaneously say they are overworked, but can knock off 1 day a week without affecting output.
Cops, Nurses, teachers, anyone with a public facing job, anyone manning a phone are paid *mostly* for their time at work.
>think the government agreeing to a 4 day work week is a pipe dream,
Start putting it up for negotiation now and maybe it will be a serious contender for agreement circa 2050.
Yeah for anyone thinking these people are getting greedy over pay, just remember they've had their wage increases capped at $1000 regardless of inflation for years
>In response to the Union’s log of claims for a 12 per cent pay rise over two years, the Government offered 11.75 per cent over the next three years, smaller than that offered to teachers
They basically offered 4% per year.
Such is barely above the current, and below the previous quarter
>Annual CPI inflation was 3.6 per cent in the March 2024 quarter, lower than the 4.1 per cent annual rise in the previous quarter. This marks the fifth consecutive quarter of lower annual inflation since the peak of 7.8 per cent in the December 2022 quarter.
Even the request of 7% and 5% didn't catch up with the previous years inflation
I understand govt is hesitant to agree for four day work week trial. But what's stopping them from offering fair pay rise? That after multiple years of 1000 dollar increments which reduced the bridge between different pay levels.
What's stopping them offering a decent pay rise? Because Labor have become obsessed with the budget surplus.
There's been this huge misinformation campaign pushed by the media that government budgets function the same as your personal budget. That if you're not in the black then you're doing something wrong or "spending recklessly." Coincidentally, this just happens to mirror how conservative governments they love gut public spending while Labor have historically spent money on shit that's needed.
When McGowan got into power, he pulled a campaign switcheroo, turning the media's rhetoric of "deficit bad" into a positive for him. He ran hard on the "Barnett's fucked us I'll get us back in black" platform. Which to his credit he did but in order to do so and maintain it he had to implement restrictive, anti-worker policies like caps on wage increases.
Now Labor are kinda backed into a corner. They can do the right thing at the risk of bringing in a deficit which the media, always working to promote conservative interests, will be all over. So McGowan and Cook have been content to just kinda sit in a move that's consistent with their overall trend of being at the head of a Labor Party that is probably closer to centrist than left-wing, especially economically.
Which is bad news for the public sector. The Liberals will never do anything to help them cause they hate the public sector. Labor are meant to be the ones who do help them but the current Labor government seem totally uninterested in actually addressing the concerns of their workers
In addition to this, it's alot easier to do one off payments with a budget surplus, as opposed to baking in increased re expenditure when you don't know for certain you'll have that extra money over the next 3 years ish.(pay rises)
Nurses’ negotiation started before the wages policy was scrapped so they are locked at the max the government was allowing under the wages policy.
Which is stupid
The issue was the ANF were facing deregulation because their head Janet Reah was being an idiot.
Unions have to be seen to be negotiating in good faith. The ANF made 2 mistakes. The first was striking when they'd been asked by the regulator not to (personally I think that defeats the purpose of industrial action if you need permission but whatever).
But the bigger mistake was publicly directing members to vote against the deal that was gonna be put to them. The bar for proving "bad faith" negotiation is pretty high but the head of the union pre-emptively telling their members to reject an offer is like handing the regulator a silver platter with "bad faith" written on it.
Most nurses were concerned that continued action and rejection could result in their union being dismantled and losing all their negotiation power so I believe they took it just to stop all the chaos Janet Reah had started
Maybe I’m stupid but what does it mean for a union to be “deregulated”. A union only exists insofar as it’s a vehicle for collective action.
If they decided to continue striking what does it matter if they’re not “technically” a union?
Thanks for your explanation though.
Did the president tell them in advance to reject the offer no matter what it is or only if it was a certain amount?
I don't know about the second part, but I'm pretty sure wildcat strikes (that is strikes without union backing) are illegal in Australia due to, I'm pretty sure, Bob Hawke era reforms to solidify Labours domination of unions while also weakening the strength of individual workers.
after checking, seems to have been a rudd-gillard decision by forcing 'legitimate' bargaining via unions before industrial action. no doubt hawkes shift to the right started such a trend.
Honestly I dont know but I can see nurses moving to Vic and we'll be even shorter on the ground. Plus international recruitment will favour 5he better pay over east too. Rooted.
Nurses were under the old wages policy which was always going to be shit. Teachers got other things aside from pay including formal commitments to manage classroom sizes and additional rights to access LSL earlier.
Public servants aren’t asking for much other than money and a *trial* for 4 day week in a small part of the government to test it out.
Accessing pro rata LSL early is something, and having commitments in writing does mean something.
But that’s besides the point, voting hasn’t finished on their deal, and this is their third offer. There’s every chance they knock their offer back again.
Should the public servants just accept less than the teachers haven’t even agreed to?
Damn are you an ALP staffer or something, trying to polish a turd?
The public servants definitely should demand and get more..just commenting on their ambition.
And so it bloody should.
For those who haven't been following it: We requested 90 changes in the log of claims and got given 8, most of which aren't even thought out and are described as "negotiations are continuing" as to how we actually implement it.
Of those 90 claims, the vast majority were workload based, not pay, including less F2F so we had time to plan, report and do admin for the betterment of the classes. It was lowering class limits to a reasonable size over the next 3 years (not immediately) so that we actually have time to sit with your kids. It was extra allowances for resources that the schools don't have money to provide so teachers are not out of pocket and kids don't miss out on activities just because the money can't be found. It was ensuring that teachers are adequately compensated for needing to do internal relief when we can't source casual teachers- so that when we do inevitably lose our planning time that week that we can afford to buy a last minute resource to still educate your kids. It's about enticing new grads to stay for longer than 3 years for consistency and a growing pool of skilled teachers. It's about enticing new grads to even finish so that we don't have schools without a teacher in front of every class.
Anyone who believes the government is in the right for not paying us doesn't understand we aren't just frustrated at the pay (although we should be- the last 5 years of caps and increases have actually left an average teacher 15% worse off in real wage growth than they were 5 years ago), we want better conditions for your kids. We can't do much with what we are being given. The whole sector is trying to stay afloat.
Email your state member, put the pressure on. Email the education minister directly, outlining what the proposed changes could mean to your child and expressing your concern about the future of education.
And probably the biggest show of support you can give us is keeping your child home from school (if possible) if we strike again. It means a lot that we can go to the strike without worrying that your child won't have duty of care. A lot of us didn't strike before because there wasn't enough cover and we would never leave the kids who needed us there.
We appreciate every single parent who cares about their kids and us. Thank you.
I say this sarcasticly because it's what the public sector did years ago when the tradies were looking for pay rises, they brought in people from overseas and kept the rates low,
It'll probably happen again, we've lost this great country to corporate greed
This is why our society fucking sucks and we'll never get actual progress on workplace reform. Because of people who can't see past the individual.
You immediately see others trying to get something you don't have and your first reaction is to think of yourself. Oh **I** don't have this nice thing so why should they? Rather than thinking "how can I get that for myself?" your line of thinking is "if **I** have to suffer then they should have to suffer too."
Spoiler alert: someone will always be the first to experience any work reform. Are you jealous that someone may have a shorter work week than you? Turn it around and realise "well if they prove it works then maybe I can argue that I could work less too."
If, rather than this stupid bitch-fighting, we all got together and realised the benefits, we could all win. I would love to see public servants get a 4 day work week trial, smash it out of the park and show once and for all we can still get shit done and work less. It's what we should all want but short-sighted people like yourself would rather we all just shut up and be miserable together.
If you wanna improve your own circumstances, how about rather than pooh-poohing the efforts of people who got off their arse to do something about it, have the guts to stand up for yourself and your coworkers. Unionise and bring your demands to management. Actually fight to improve your conditions rather than fight to bring others down so we can all be miserable together.
You seem to be madder not at your own exploitation but at the fact others are wise enough to see it and speak out about it rather than suffering in silence
Honestly, so much of the public sector is tired and burnt out. Wages have fallen behind, while we’ve seen massive cost of living increases. To add insult to injury, Pollies wages have continued to increase. Workloads have increased massively and are in many cases unsustainable. Staff burnt the candle at both ends through covid only to be met with insufficient wage increases and a forced return to work in offices putting many at health risks for what seemed to be a move to support the business lobby. Many experienced public servants left, some got long covid. Any fat from the public sector was trimmed decades ago, with lowering of FTE caps from the previous government of the day. Staff are leaving left right and centre, some going to private, many are leaving or reducing hours with physical symptoms of stress and burnout. This creates a viscous cycle where less staff = unsustainable workloads = less staff. This is not happening to ‘rich fat cats in luxury roles’ but to hardworking people in front line and key services. Nurses, teachers, child protection, community services, transport etc. We can’t keep plugging the gaps through good will. We’re tired and burnt out and need adequate resources. Our wages have gone backwards so much the public sector isn’t competitive anymore. Not to mention the demands of life have increased. The 8 hour day was designed around 8 hours rest, 8 hours work and 8 hours leisure. Who TF is getting 8 hours leisure? Most families are both folks working and home time is just second shift. The city is so spread out that a lot of folks have a 1-2 hour commute every day on top of work and family responsibilities. Even a generous wage offer isn’t going to suddenly make the public sector competitive after years of cuts. A 4 day work week trial would both relieve some level of stress and burnout and increase attraction and retention. All without losing our fucking budget surplus.
Hear hear ! Quick to take things away during covid that we never got back, expected to do handle everything even though our wages stagnate.
In a way government provides a baseline around which private sets their pay levels to. Government pays less, private gets to pay less for the same standard. Pay peanuts get monkeys, which has been the government for the last 10-15 years. People are burnt out and done. Give them something more than inflation. Something that'll actually enable them to buy a house.
Nurses and Teachers have specific awards, this is for everything else.
Yes but the issues are similar across all.
Why does nobody ever mention doctors? We get screwed as bad as nurses
>Our wages have gone backwards so much the public sector isn’t competitive anymore. Really? Doing the same job in the PS will net me a 20k increase, more work from home, better super, additional leave and the option to buy more leave. Needless to say, I'm planning on jumping ship. I can't image much public support for this, outside of for nurses. Hope it gets up though. Downvote me all you want public servants but it's fact that the PS outstrips private in both benefits and salary in my field, until you're late career at least.
May I ask which industry are you in? Are you younger? Public service pay is traditionally more competitive at lower levels, but this doesn’t last once you move up to more experienced roles. Just because your specific job might be more well paid, doesn’t negate the fact the the overall decline in wages growth has made the sector uncompetitive as whole because career development leads to wages being behind private industry long term. Ie a junior role might be paid worse in private sector initially, but longer term, will lead to career opportunities with much higher wages. If my husband moved to the public sector in his field his wage would drop by at least a third, if not more. Not to discourage you of course. Best of luck in applying! Look up STAR guidelines for applications if you haven’t already! Good to be aware the WA public servants don’t get any more super than is the legal requirement- you might be thinking of local or commonwealth government. And WFH is not a given and can vary a lot depending on your organisation and management. I’ve not seen anyone approved for more than 2 days, but YMMV.
25-30 age bracket working in policy. Early in the journey though as I underwent a career change via uni. Thanks for the information, seems to largely align with what I'd already gathered so far. Still think 3-5 years public and then back to private might be the way forward for me. Re 2 days WFH - that's a dream. Currently wasting 2.5hrs + a day on commute. PS office locations tend to be better as well from what I can see.
Sorry I edited for more info just as you replied. Ahh that makes sense! Best of luck for your application!
Thanks! Going to shoot my shot with the Austrade grad program first!
Good luck! Austrade is Federal Government- that’s why you’re thinking more super. This article is for WA State Government- different remuneration and award :-)
Sorry, my comments were unclear. I'm aware of the difference between the two as I've applied for both APS and State previously. Both are still better than I'm likely to earn staying private in the short to midterm. Thank you sharing, though. :)
Sadly I agree there won't be a lot of public support, mainly because in my experience people would rather we all be miserable together than seeing one work group get something nice that can be a roadmap to how we all get that nice thing. Surely public sector proving a 4 day workweek can be done would be a massive step forward in negotiations across the board (i.e. for private to remain competitive they'd have to match it)
Yeah, that's how I view it also. It's a bit of a joke that for all our technical advancements I still have to sit behind a desk and look busy for 6-12 hours per week even when I've usually completed everything or can't proceed without a response from somebody else.
Not enough staff to sustain a 4 day week.
Albo is working on it ok
Maybe true for grads and entry level roles but across many sectors where you have 2-3+ years experience, the pay crosses and strongly diverges thereon.
To put it in perspective, I worked a full time retail sales job (including commission) and moved to a PS adjacent role about 15 years ago (about Level 5), and took a pay cut in a the process. I took it for the hours - Mon to Fri, but to take my relevant uni degrees into a decent, mid-level office gig from a minimum wage + comms retail sales role and take a pay cut was a choice I made. Not everyone in the public sector is Class 1 or CEO band.
Which position are you in currently and which public sector position are you looking at? A link to the latter would be ideal as well.
I think the government agreeing to a 4 day work week is a pipe dream, at least any time soon. Maybe a 9 day fortnight might be a easier proposal to get accepted. But a wage increase in line with inflation more than make sense
The union weren't asking to be given a 4 day work week immediately. As part of the deal that was proposed, it included a trial of a 4 day work week. The government flat out rejected a trial without even an attempt to compromise like suggesting a trial of a 9 day fortnight. The issue the union have is that not only did the government massively delay releasing the new draft agreement, certain parts of it like the 4 day work week trial were flat out rejected with no explanation given Labor have completely forgotten they're meant to be the party of the working man. Maybe at some point they'd like to remember that and start acting like it
The 9 day fortnight is already available
U still work the same hours for the same pay. It's not better and does not fix any problems
> It's not better and does not fix any problems You do you, losing our 9 day fortnight's are probably the only thing that'd get my entire department on strike.
I worked in a public sector office,everyone did the 9 day fortnight and didn't bother doing the extra hour of work, no one kept tabs. Many would take almost every Friday off because no one kept tabs on which Friday was your friday off. Combine that with flexi time (start anytime between 7 and 9, finish between 4 and 6) people would use that to come in at 9 and leave at 4, lol. Add in half hour coffee breaks twice a day, 1.5hr lunch breaks, I didn't feel like they were working very hard for their money. Lol
Downvoted for going against the narrative
It's never going to get anywhere if the government don't take the lead. Most people who've tried working four longer days for the fifth day off are more productive *and* happier. It makes a huge difference to quality of life.
4 day work week means 4 days of work, not 5 days squeezed into 4 days.
The union proposal was the 100-80-100 model of 100% pay, 80% hours for 100% productivity
Honestly, in that model the hours should be irrelevant. I'd have loved pay-for-productivity when I was a public servant; I regularly did the work of multiple people.
Your reward for being good at your job - have more work!
Truer words were never spoken, especially in the WA public service.
Even when it's still ~35-40 hours in 4 days, having a weekday off each week allows for more flexibility in things like scheduling.
Less commute time for those that can't WFH too.
Very true. And not just a 20% reduction, either - if working longer hours in a day, it might involve traveling at non-peak-hour times.
yeah dard
Not usually. And seriously, productivity goes up.
You know what else makes productivity go up? All those advances in technology in the last 40 or so years. Virtually every single person on the planet is more productive than their counterparts were 40 years ago. So why do we continue to delude ourselves that working the same hours as our counterparts, for (relative to COL anyway) less pay for the same number of hours is in any way, shape or form a good deal? I have no doubt productivity goes up even in an undesirable compromise of 5 days of work squeezed into 4. But why this arbitrary obsession with 40 hours? While there are some jobs where productivity is inherently tied to hours, most office-based workers could easily work 32 hours and still be infinitely more productive than their counterparts of 40 years ago. The only reason for the push of 40 hours into 4 days as opposed to a full reduction in hours in a lot of cases is employer greed. I don't see how we've advanced so much as a society yet we're tied to this arbitrary, century-old concept of "you must work 40 hours a week or you're a grub"
I'm deeply fascinated at the way that technology is still marketed as being great for productivity and making work lives easier. History shows time and again that all that happens is that workers are expected to have more output, not that hours go down.
Yeah I don't know why more people don't get angry that rather than using technology to be more efficient and therefore work less we instead got punished for that efficiency by being forced to work the same amount of hours and just do more
Productivity went up in the few industries that trialed it (mostly creative fields like marketing) A job that's customer facing or fixing/building something will need to employ an extra person to fill the role (unless we shut down public services on Fridays)
Customer facing can easily be worked around by having half have Friday off and the other half have Monday off.
yeah dard
In some roles yes. But for front-line staff they're basically going to be running the same workload with fewer people on-deck. Unless they hire more staff, which gets hella expensive
That’s asking for a 25% increase in your salary.
Wait til you find out what the word salary means.
No
The government employees only do maximum 3 days a week work as it is - being employed full-time. They know how the system works. They are the long time employees who have only worked for the government and never experienced private companies with employment. There are thousands and thousands of contractors in the government, who don’t get the gov employee benefits. And shit pay. And conditions.
Lol. The moment a lab gov runs with that idea, they will be beaten mercilessly by the right wing and the right wing media mouthpieces.
So just let the bullies win?
Not claiming to have the answer, just this is the normal playbook. The right wing mouthpiece is struggling to use credible talking points atm (especially since the redic nuclear plan)... they'd love to run with this
While I very much agree, I hate how Labor at both state and federal level are a bunch of pussies. Conservative media will try to undermine them regardless of what they do, so why are they consistently bringing lukewarm policy to the table in an attempt to appease them? Just once, I'd love a radical Labor government to just show everyone a good time. Fuck it give the public sector a 4 day workweek. Give public sector workers a pay rise. Properly fund education and healthcare. Then when the Liberals predictably campaign on "we can't have a good time we're gonna remove all that" throw all decorum out the window. They play dirty, so do we. Run a campaign of "lol you have great pay, more time off work and a better funded education and healthcare system. No no by all means vote for the party that's gonna cut your wages, force you back into work and fuck your schools and hospitals over"
So, no change?
We have a 9 day fortnight at my council
yeah, but what's the bet you work 8.5 hour days, so it's still 76 hours a fortnight.
Yep so it’s gonna be like 10 hr days if we have an 8 day fortnite
The union wants to get paid for 76 hours and work 61.
The public sector union is negotiating for 60 hours and getting paid your current salary. Let’s not say getting paid for 75 hours (public servants do 75 a fortnight not 76), because that implies that people are productive for that long and they want to just get the pay without the work
They want to reduce work hours by 20%, but not lose any pay.
Without losing productivity, is the important part. The same workload without the obligation to be there for an extra 7.5 hours a week that burns people out and reduces their productivity. Most companies that trial this for office work find productivity overall *improves*, which indicates that working hours to work output is not a straight line. You’re at work for fewer hours, but you are still doing the work.
>Most companies that trial this for office work Plenty of "creative" companies like advertising, marketing and PR. tried that. The only government [who did a long term trial was Iceland. ](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-15/four-day-week-iceland-success-too-good-to-be-true/100293538)After the trial , they stuck with the 5 day week.
[There was a range of companies that trialled it in Australia](https://4dayweek.io/country/australia#:~:text=4%20Day%20Work%20Week%20in,Australian%20employees%20were%20accustomed%20to.) including companies in industries like Professional Services, Finance and Manufacturing. I’m sure I don’t need to explain that a lot of government jobs are effectively professional services lol
Last time I checked, most public sector workers are paid salary for their output not to sit on their arse in a chair for a set amount of time
If they are currently sitting on their arse 20% of the time it's a management failure. They can't simultaneously say they are overworked, but can knock off 1 day a week without affecting output. Cops, Nurses, teachers, anyone with a public facing job, anyone manning a phone are paid *mostly* for their time at work.
Hahahah damn
What we have at our Shire, works well.
>think the government agreeing to a 4 day work week is a pipe dream, Start putting it up for negotiation now and maybe it will be a serious contender for agreement circa 2050.
The government's offer is above inflation. I don't know what they got last year though, they might need more to catch up.
3% last year following years of capped rises at 1.5%.
Yeah for anyone thinking these people are getting greedy over pay, just remember they've had their wage increases capped at $1000 regardless of inflation for years
👆🏻
>In response to the Union’s log of claims for a 12 per cent pay rise over two years, the Government offered 11.75 per cent over the next three years, smaller than that offered to teachers They basically offered 4% per year. Such is barely above the current, and below the previous quarter >Annual CPI inflation was 3.6 per cent in the March 2024 quarter, lower than the 4.1 per cent annual rise in the previous quarter. This marks the fifth consecutive quarter of lower annual inflation since the peak of 7.8 per cent in the December 2022 quarter. Even the request of 7% and 5% didn't catch up with the previous years inflation
No sense to keep working in the public sector any more, pay and conditions have gone so far behind. State gov has no intention to rectify it.
I understand govt is hesitant to agree for four day work week trial. But what's stopping them from offering fair pay rise? That after multiple years of 1000 dollar increments which reduced the bridge between different pay levels.
What's stopping them offering a decent pay rise? Because Labor have become obsessed with the budget surplus. There's been this huge misinformation campaign pushed by the media that government budgets function the same as your personal budget. That if you're not in the black then you're doing something wrong or "spending recklessly." Coincidentally, this just happens to mirror how conservative governments they love gut public spending while Labor have historically spent money on shit that's needed. When McGowan got into power, he pulled a campaign switcheroo, turning the media's rhetoric of "deficit bad" into a positive for him. He ran hard on the "Barnett's fucked us I'll get us back in black" platform. Which to his credit he did but in order to do so and maintain it he had to implement restrictive, anti-worker policies like caps on wage increases. Now Labor are kinda backed into a corner. They can do the right thing at the risk of bringing in a deficit which the media, always working to promote conservative interests, will be all over. So McGowan and Cook have been content to just kinda sit in a move that's consistent with their overall trend of being at the head of a Labor Party that is probably closer to centrist than left-wing, especially economically. Which is bad news for the public sector. The Liberals will never do anything to help them cause they hate the public sector. Labor are meant to be the ones who do help them but the current Labor government seem totally uninterested in actually addressing the concerns of their workers
In addition to this, it's alot easier to do one off payments with a budget surplus, as opposed to baking in increased re expenditure when you don't know for certain you'll have that extra money over the next 3 years ish.(pay rises)
What did nurses get after all that stop work stuff? 2 or 3 percent? Vic nurses just got 28% over 4 years!
Why did WA nurses agree? I wasn’t following their negotiations. Why not strike?
Nurses’ negotiation started before the wages policy was scrapped so they are locked at the max the government was allowing under the wages policy. Which is stupid
I don’t follow. If the nurses refused the offer then the government would have to pay more
The issue was the ANF were facing deregulation because their head Janet Reah was being an idiot. Unions have to be seen to be negotiating in good faith. The ANF made 2 mistakes. The first was striking when they'd been asked by the regulator not to (personally I think that defeats the purpose of industrial action if you need permission but whatever). But the bigger mistake was publicly directing members to vote against the deal that was gonna be put to them. The bar for proving "bad faith" negotiation is pretty high but the head of the union pre-emptively telling their members to reject an offer is like handing the regulator a silver platter with "bad faith" written on it. Most nurses were concerned that continued action and rejection could result in their union being dismantled and losing all their negotiation power so I believe they took it just to stop all the chaos Janet Reah had started
Maybe I’m stupid but what does it mean for a union to be “deregulated”. A union only exists insofar as it’s a vehicle for collective action. If they decided to continue striking what does it matter if they’re not “technically” a union? Thanks for your explanation though. Did the president tell them in advance to reject the offer no matter what it is or only if it was a certain amount?
I don't know about the second part, but I'm pretty sure wildcat strikes (that is strikes without union backing) are illegal in Australia due to, I'm pretty sure, Bob Hawke era reforms to solidify Labours domination of unions while also weakening the strength of individual workers.
Damn the more you know. Thanks
after checking, seems to have been a rudd-gillard decision by forcing 'legitimate' bargaining via unions before industrial action. no doubt hawkes shift to the right started such a trend.
> he bar for proving "bad faith" negotiation is pretty high That the gov's wage policy didn't count as bad faith negotiations was completely cooked.
Honestly I dont know but I can see nurses moving to Vic and we'll be even shorter on the ground. Plus international recruitment will favour 5he better pay over east too. Rooted.
After the shitty deals nurses and teachers got, this is pretty ambitious.
Nurses were under the old wages policy which was always going to be shit. Teachers got other things aside from pay including formal commitments to manage classroom sizes and additional rights to access LSL earlier. Public servants aren’t asking for much other than money and a *trial* for 4 day week in a small part of the government to test it out.
Teachers didn't get anything except the pay. Everything else was weasel words and vague promises instead of anything substantial.
Accessing pro rata LSL early is something, and having commitments in writing does mean something. But that’s besides the point, voting hasn’t finished on their deal, and this is their third offer. There’s every chance they knock their offer back again. Should the public servants just accept less than the teachers haven’t even agreed to?
Damn are you an ALP staffer or something, trying to polish a turd? The public servants definitely should demand and get more..just commenting on their ambition.
That makes no sense, I’m saying what the CSA is asking for is what they deserve to get.
Good to push for the 4 day week! Don't think you'll get it, but hopefully one day we can get past 'traditional' work patterns.
Public schools are next
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. IIRC further school strikes aren't out of the question yet
Voting closes tomorrow for teachers, if they knock back the third offer it will likely go to further strike action
And so it bloody should. For those who haven't been following it: We requested 90 changes in the log of claims and got given 8, most of which aren't even thought out and are described as "negotiations are continuing" as to how we actually implement it. Of those 90 claims, the vast majority were workload based, not pay, including less F2F so we had time to plan, report and do admin for the betterment of the classes. It was lowering class limits to a reasonable size over the next 3 years (not immediately) so that we actually have time to sit with your kids. It was extra allowances for resources that the schools don't have money to provide so teachers are not out of pocket and kids don't miss out on activities just because the money can't be found. It was ensuring that teachers are adequately compensated for needing to do internal relief when we can't source casual teachers- so that when we do inevitably lose our planning time that week that we can afford to buy a last minute resource to still educate your kids. It's about enticing new grads to stay for longer than 3 years for consistency and a growing pool of skilled teachers. It's about enticing new grads to even finish so that we don't have schools without a teacher in front of every class. Anyone who believes the government is in the right for not paying us doesn't understand we aren't just frustrated at the pay (although we should be- the last 5 years of caps and increases have actually left an average teacher 15% worse off in real wage growth than they were 5 years ago), we want better conditions for your kids. We can't do much with what we are being given. The whole sector is trying to stay afloat.
What can parents do to support you?
Email your state member, put the pressure on. Email the education minister directly, outlining what the proposed changes could mean to your child and expressing your concern about the future of education. And probably the biggest show of support you can give us is keeping your child home from school (if possible) if we strike again. It means a lot that we can go to the strike without worrying that your child won't have duty of care. A lot of us didn't strike before because there wasn't enough cover and we would never leave the kids who needed us there. We appreciate every single parent who cares about their kids and us. Thank you.
Workers in Greece have just been allocated a six day working week!! saying this will create more employment as well as productivity,
So are they hiring? I reckon I could do the job 🤣
I say this sarcasticly because it's what the public sector did years ago when the tradies were looking for pay rises, they brought in people from overseas and kept the rates low, It'll probably happen again, we've lost this great country to corporate greed
Did the public sector make this call or did the government of the day? ‘Cause those are two different things.
I didn't think the 4-day week was going to be accepted. Perhaps in the future
🎻 hardest workers In the world. My heart bleeds for them 😢
This is why our society fucking sucks and we'll never get actual progress on workplace reform. Because of people who can't see past the individual. You immediately see others trying to get something you don't have and your first reaction is to think of yourself. Oh **I** don't have this nice thing so why should they? Rather than thinking "how can I get that for myself?" your line of thinking is "if **I** have to suffer then they should have to suffer too." Spoiler alert: someone will always be the first to experience any work reform. Are you jealous that someone may have a shorter work week than you? Turn it around and realise "well if they prove it works then maybe I can argue that I could work less too." If, rather than this stupid bitch-fighting, we all got together and realised the benefits, we could all win. I would love to see public servants get a 4 day work week trial, smash it out of the park and show once and for all we can still get shit done and work less. It's what we should all want but short-sighted people like yourself would rather we all just shut up and be miserable together. If you wanna improve your own circumstances, how about rather than pooh-poohing the efforts of people who got off their arse to do something about it, have the guts to stand up for yourself and your coworkers. Unionise and bring your demands to management. Actually fight to improve your conditions rather than fight to bring others down so we can all be miserable together. You seem to be madder not at your own exploitation but at the fact others are wise enough to see it and speak out about it rather than suffering in silence
“Give me more money for less work and give it to me now!” Give me a break…