Last year I started a new job as a junior executive in a big government department. Within the year, I was already facing tough decisions about cutting costs. As the last in a long line of managers juggling budget cuts, my options to save money without cutting services were already exhausted.
It had always struck me as unfair that some staff get benefits, like extra pay or holidays, that aren’t available to other people who are doing the same job under a different classification. Now, for the first time, I realised how many of them there were, and how much it costs! Some of these arrangements grandfathering front line conditions for back of house staff had been in place for more than 20 years! Here was my opportunity to meet the new budget, make the workplace fairer, and maximise public value!
I knew it would be a massively time-consuming headache to change, especially dealing with the union. Many staff would be affected and none of them would like it, even though I was sure they could see how unfair the current arrangements were to the other staff. However, it was truly the only way I could see to meet our budget without cutting our services.
I started investigating and found examples of almost identical scenarios, where staff doing identical work are paid differently because of jobs they used to have. There were other examples of similar things, like grandfathered arrangements that exempted current paramedics from new qualification requirements; or non-pharmacists to continue owning pharmacies, despite changes to ownership rules.
The public deserves the best use of their money and staff deserve to be treated fairly. Public funds should provide front line pay and conditions for people who are doing front line work, not for people who used to do front line work and are now in administrative roles.
I consulted more senior executives to ask why so many of these arrangements had been allowed to go on for so long. Apparently there had been proposals in the past to standardise pay and conditions at administrative rates and give former front line staff the opportunity to either accept the changed conditions or transition back to front line work. The proposals were ignored, however, because no one was prepared to raise it with the union.
Now that the choice is plainly to cut services or introduce fair pay and conditions, and now that I’m the one who will have to take the heat, it seems they’re willing to let me pay for the sins of my fathers (and grandfathers).
