Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Tasso.Tzioumis/cpsu/rwg_options_5jun.txt Дата изменения: Wed Jun 5 19:13:59 1996 Дата индексирования: Fri Feb 28 13:16:18 2014 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: galactic cluster

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:55:20 +1000
From: Nigel Russell
Subject: RWG Options

To: Remuneration Working Group (RWG)

I attended the RWG Meeting held at Lindfield last Wednesday afternoon and
found it most informative. I have the following comments to make in respect
of the options presented by the RWG Team.


(1) Option 1

Option 1 has the merit of being a transparent paid rate award with clearly
defined salary points. Modification of the current system should be
possible to provide a less flawed paid rate award. Salary increases are
achieved by negotiations between the union and the CSIRO management via
Enterprise Bargain and other similar negotiation processes.


(2) Option 2

Option 2 also has the merit of being a transparent paid rate award with
clearly defined salary points. However, under this option, there is a
possibility that the Performance Reward step at the top of the pay levels
might be used inappropriately, inasmuch as Performance Reward might be used
by some managers to avoid Reclassification.

Implicit in the need to provide a Performance Reward is the notion that the
dedicated research scientist and research support staff cease to work to the
best of their ability on reaching a salary ceiling at the top of pay level.
I aware that some of my colleagues feel insulted by this notion. I'm not
quite sure what it says about the people that hold such a notion. It may be
a mistake to see all rewards only in terms of financial gain: research
funds, a pleasant working environment, opportunities to attend national and
international scientific meetings, etc., can all count for quite a lot.


(3) Option 3

Option 3 can be interpreted as a minimum rate award. The salary at the base
of the lowest pay band (90% of the mid-point salary of the lowest pay band)
corresponding to the minimum rate and all payments above this base salary
being discretionary over-award payments. The mid-point salary of each pay
band can be regarded as skill-based over-award pay points, again with
discretionary salary setting within the pay band.

Discretionary setting of salaries is clearly open to abuse and should not be
part of any public sector pay system, where independence of public servants,
free from fear or favour, is paramount.

There appears to be a secrecy clause inherent in Option 3, inasmuch as
discretionary payments are confidential between supervisor and supervisee in
much the same way as a one-on-one contract.

The removal of the union from the salary negotiation process is implicit in
Option 3, since salaries will be fixed by CSIRO management on the basis of a
comparison with an, as yet, unspecified salary database, based on basket of
salaries drawn from a range of private and public sector organisations . It
is a basic tenet of unionism that the union should be able to negotiate all
terms and conditions with management, especially salary issues, on behalf of
their membership. No union member, union representative or union official
should lightly countenance the acceptance of any option that resulted in the
removal of the union from the salary negotiation process. Removal of the
union from the salary negotiation process could be seen as the thin edge of
the wedge to remove the union from negotiating any terms and conditions with
management.

Under Option 3 there appears to be no guarantee of salary rises above the
inflation rate or indeed of salaries keeping pace with inflation. Whilst
this is also true of convential managment / union salary negotiations under
Options 1 and 2, proponents of Option 3 appear to be suggesting that Option
3 is the only way to guarantee real salary increases.


General Comments

Whilst the current paid rate award has flaws, the RWG presentation indicated
that improvements could easily be made without substantive change to the
basic structure of this award.

Flexibility can be achieved without resort to Option 3 by extension of the
senior specialist concept to lower salary levels, without endangering the
paid rate award. Specialists revert to their substantive level after a
three-year period, unless re-appointed for a further three years. In-built
safe guards should be provided to prevent abuse of this mechanism. The
Specialist and Senior Specialist options should only be used where a
particular area of technical expertise, e.g. information technology, is
required and market place rates need to be paid to secure suitable staff

The "zero-sum game" applies to all three options. It seems to me that
higher salaries can be achieved by one, or a combination of, three processes:-

(1) Downsizing the CSIRO and paying higher salaries to the retained staff.

(2) Increasing funding base, either by increasing appropriation funding and,
or, by increasing external, non-appropriation, funding.

(3) Redistributing funds within the CSIRO, including adjusting the ratio
between research/research support activities and administration/managment
and paying higher salaries in some functional areas and lower salaries in
other functional areas.


Conclusions

Options 1 and 2 are equally acceptable, provided that there are in-built
safeguards to prevent abuse of the Performance Award mechanism in Option 2.

Because of its implications for the ability of the union to fully represent
its members in salary negotiations, Option 3 is clearly not an acceptable
option.


I wish to emphasise that this response is my personal point of view and does
not necessarily reflect the opinions or belief systems of any of my CSIRO
and, or, CPSU colleagues.


Nigel Russell

(President, NSW Sub-Branch - CSIRO Division - PSU Group - CPSU)