Darryl Pyrke
IN THE coming weeks there will be much debate about the pay of Tasmanian public servants. It will be in the interests of all Tasmanians that this debate is informed by the facts. Accordingly I outline in the following paragraphs some important points about the issue of pay parity.
The first point to note is that Tasmanians have plenty of options if they want to pursue work in other states and territories. In practice this is exactly what happens for a range of reasons, including better pay. If Tasmanian employers don’t then respond with pay parity, it becomes more difficult to attract and retain quality employees.
With this background in mind, a State Government that doesn’t offer pay parity faces a number of choices, all of which are painful:
• don’t fill jobs
• fill jobs with applicants who don’t meet the prescribed selection criteria
• outsource.
When the Government decides to not fill jobs, the short term consequence is that employees’ pride in their work drives them to try to cover the vacant positions. While this may result in cost savings in the short term, in the medium to long term there is over work, stress, and the cost of workers compensation claims.
There can also be political consequences as the Government is held to account by members of the public who are angry that promised services are unavailable.
If the Government decides to fill jobs with applicants who don’t meet the prescribed selection criteria, it will in some cases recruit employees who have the capacity to develop over time. However the reality tends to be that many of these employees do exactly what their predecessors did – that is, they quickly move to other workplaces that offer pay parity. In this scenario, the Government incurs the substantial cost of constant labour turnover.
At the same time a preparedness to employ applicants who don’t meet the prescribed selection criteria can also lead to employment of people who simply aren’t ever able to do the work. This approach can then lead to performance management and termination, with associated costs. It also alienates the employees who have to cover for the incompetent and, again, produces over work, stress and workers compensation claims.
In the case of professional employees, the outsourcing option in practice involves the engagement of consultants. This is a good option for work that is unusual and not within the competency of in-house staff. It’s also an appropriate option for managing one-off peaks in the workload. However, it’s not a cost effective option for mainstream, on-going work. Recognising this point, the Government recently approved a move towards pay parity for engineers employed by the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.
In summary, pay parity is good policy and it should be put in place at the earliest opportunity.
Darryl Pyrke |Director Tasmania
The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
