Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
|
The NSW Public Service Association (PSA), the union representing state public servants, has adopted eight controversial changes to its rules which will have a significant impact on the way that the union operates. At the February 11 meeting of the PSA’s governing body, the Central Council, a majority of Councillors voted to overturn the union’s long-standing ban on participation in party-politics and to replace the system of proportional representation used to elect the Council with a winner-takes-all method of preferential voting. The changes will mean that the union may now for the first time use its finances and staff to fund party political campaigns and support political candidates at election time. It will also now allow the union to affiliate to the Labor Party, should the union’s Executive wish to do so. Other changes include removing candidate information from the balloting material mailed to members during union elections and instead placing it on the union’s website and allowing any PSA member, including members of staff, to be appointed acting General Secretary. During the debate, PSA General Secretary John Cahill, speaking on behalf of the ruling faction, focused on the need for the union to be able to provide material support to the ALP at election time as the party most favourable to the interests of PSA members. Cahill also claimed that PSA involvement in the Your Rights at Work campaign may have been in breach of the union’s rules. These claims were refuted and the proposed changes rejected by various Central Councillors from the Progressive PSA, a rank and file reform group within the union. It was argued that, as a public sector union, it will compromise the union’s ability and willingness to fight for members’ rights by being so close to the party of government. It was also argued that the changes to the electoral system will limit the diversity of opinion within the union and fail to reflect a broad cross-section of members’ views on its peak decision making body. Concern was also expressed that the proposed changes were not publicised or explained to the membership in the lead up to Monday’s vote. It appears that the timing was organised to avoid scrutiny and input by the 44 000 strong membership as the rule changes were placed on notice shortly before the Christmas holiday period; a period when most delegates and members were off work, and in many cases, away on holidays. In the end, the vote on the changes proceeded along factional lines and was passed by 36 votes to 15, with one abstention. Progressive PSA Central Councillor and Vice-President Paul Petersen said of the changes: “It is little more than a grab for power by the ruling faction. They hope to eliminate dissenting voices. The changes do nothing to unify our members or strengthen the union.” Delegates who voted against the rule changes expressed the overwhelming majority of opinion of those members aware of the issue. Some members were able to express their strong opposition to the changes and the lack of consultation on the issue in workplace meetings held in various government departments. For more information visit: http://www.progressivepsa.org |
- 935 reads
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
I don't have a problem in principle with a union being aligned to a party. Lots are. But thats a decision of the membership at large not just a power hungry leadership clique.
Its not just a party, they're our bosses
The problem with a public sector union supporting the ALP, which is what will result from these changes, is that it amounts to financial and material support for our industrial opponents, the bosses. The ALP has been in power at a state level for 12 years, they are the party of govt, the employer of public servants. It is the equivalent of the CFMEU giving large sums of money to Multiplex and Leightons.
It is a significant conflict of interest for the ruling faction of the PSA to be so heavily involved in Labor Party politics, (the PSA President, Sue Walsh, sought preselection for a Labor seat at the last Federal election), whilst beng paid handsomely to represent the industrial interests of govt employees.
The membership are outraged about these changes but were prevented from having a say because the changes were organised and adopted largely without their knowledge.
Apart from that, I believe in principle that trade unions should be independent of all political parties, but that is a side point to this issue.
Important story not on the sidebar?
This is an interesting story about how democracy is or is not operating depending on your view under an aging ALP regime.
But I don't see it on the sidebar for today's posts?
Public Service Association and NSWTF Support Corrupt Labor Party
There have been calls in the media for the N.S.W. State Government to
be dismissed. I agree. The Wollongong affair has shown how Labor does
business. Shame on these two unions, NSW Teachers Federation and PSA,
for supporting the EMPLOYER - whom they are meant to be opposing on
behalf of members. This is precisely why these two unions have enabled
HeathQuest to continue certifying whistleblower public servants
'insane': since they support the Labor government, of course they
support its right to have Soviet psychiatry in operation in this state.
Two very evil unions.
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
I am a member of the PSA and can someone tell me, without the hysteria, what the issue is? Our union has not affiliated with any party. And as I undertsand the union 's General Secretary made it very clear in the debate that there was no intention to affiliate to the ALP.
Finally how is it a grab for power?
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
Dear 'PSA member',
Power Grab? Here's one reason for that claim
The Rules change is clearly a "grab for power" when one highly democratic voting system for the ruling body of the union (proportional representation) is replaced with a less democratic system (simple preferential).
The ruling body of the union is Central Council comprised of 45 Councillors. Each 4 years it is elected by the members at large in one electorate, state wide, across all Departments and agencies. Just like the Upper House of NSW Parliament or the Senate. In such an electorate the only way to have a variety of views fully represented is to use proportional representation. But that system has been replaced in the PSA by simple preferential (like in the Lower House where there are seperate electorates).
In multi-electorate election a variety of views can be represented by people of differing views being elected by different electorates. In a single multi-seat electorate like Central Council its winner takes all if you use simple preferential.
It is expected that the two ALP aligned factions will follow their usual practice and swap preferences. This make the ALP left PSA officers group who trade under the name "Rank & File" and the ALP Right aligned (also misnamed) "Members First" factions a coalition.
Other reasons
Its a power grab because the clear intention is to:
1. Not inform members of the Rules Change. Only the PPSA caucus has made an effort to inform members. And where they have moved motions against the changes that has been successful in every case.
2. Not send out candidate information and preference flow information to members at the time of the election but to make that info available only on the PSA web site. Many members fear it will go in just as obscure a place as the Notice of Motion of the rules change was placed.
3. Non-factional independents will be wiped out. It costs around $30,000 to do a mailout in a PSA election. Thats the only way to win enough votes to gain 50% plus one of the votes and win a majority on Central Council. If you are not aligned to one of the three voting tickets what chance is there of spending $30,000. Only the ruling faction is allowed access to the union journal, email, staff campaigning on their behalf and other means of free publicity.
4. As a result there will be no point of view on Central Council apart from the ALP aligned factional coalition.
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
Dear PSA member,
You are quite correct that the PSA Gen Secretary "made it clear that there was no intention to affiliate to the ALP". Its much, much worse than that.
The PSA rules changes took away any and all prohibition on the union supporting party political candidates. The prohibition on funding party political candidates was also taken away. Put those two together and you have a generalised ability to do both those things i.e. to both support and to fund party political candidates.
The General Secretary claimed that the Rules changes were necessary to allow for support to political campaigns like Your Rights @ Work. Such a claim is utter rubbish. Nobody has ever objected to that campaign against WorkChoices.
What is the real issue? Together with the changed election rules which introduce a 'winner takes all' system for the ruling body of the union then you have a 'one party rule' on Central Council with no oversight, no independents. Thats what makes these rules changes worse than outright affiliation.
In the past when the General Secretary wrote to PSA members in the Marrickville state electorate to encourage a vote for the ALP candidate in a bye-election objections were made. The issue was raised at Central Council by Progressive PSA councillors and independents. It is clear that allowing that sort of activity is what the General Secretary wishes to be made legal under the rules rather than the unions uncontroversial support for Your Rights @ Work or other well supported union social/industrial/political campaigns.
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
This thread orininally started when the ruling factions of the PSA moved to restrict internal democracy in the union and simultaneously to take away the prohibition on supporting party political candidates in elections.
All of the rules changes were allowed by the industrial commission except the one which hid candidate information on the PSA web page instead of sending it out with voting papers. Now that info will be sent out.
Many PSA delegates members meetings voted to have the Central Council review these changes. These motions went to May PSA Annual Conference but the General Secretary refused to include them in Conference papers.
They had to be printed seperately by the Progressives and distributed. However the General Secretary and the President waited till the Conference was nearly over, with 30 minutes to go, and over half the deleagtes had left before allowing the motions to be dealt with. Then they moved a gag motion just when the debte was in earnest. Thats what the curent leadership of the union thinks of union democracy.
Re: PSA PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR TREATMENT OF G SNEDDON
As someone who has belonged to the PSA, I want the current union leadership to explain to me why it failed to support then PSA member gillian sneddon when her employer NSW Parliament was victmising her for coperating with the NSW Police investigation into the serious crimes of Milton Okropolous. For her courage Gillian Sneddon was driven almost to suicide as I understand it and yet the PSA turned its back on her. This is a perfect illustration of the danger inherent in the PSA and the Labour Party being in each others pockets. The Gillian Sneddon story raises serious questions about the PSA and the whole NSW Govt. I want answers Mr Cahill
Gerard Crewdson DOCS 1990- PSA member mid 1998-
P.S.A. Please explain your treatment of G. Sneddon
I have not had any support from the PSA my union apart from an information package sent Oct 06. My former colleague Vicki Calder had PSA Organiser, Bill Ferguson present when she worked on her statement to hinder my Workers Compensation claim. Robert Coombes the new member for Swansea doesn't want to know me, yet isn't he supposed to be a union heavy? Doesn't he realise that he would not be the Member for Swansea had I not told the truth. My colleague Vicki Calder told me that she would not have even made a record! So had the police spoken to her and not me, Milton would still be the Member for Swansea and Robert Coombes would be somewhere in Sydney on his soap box! By the way I did get a phone call from the PSA the day that Quentin Dempster rang me. I did not return the PSA call as it was one year too late! Quentin on the other hand was extremely helpful, and my life started to turn around from there on. I would like all my union fees to be reimbursed as the PSA is to quote Milton "Weak as Piss!"
Gillian
Re: P.S.A. Please explain your treatment of G. Sneddon
Great to hear from you Gillian.
The PSA is "piss weak" as is every union - it is only too late when you eventually find out that they are working against you and supporting management or the govt of the day and sabotaging you or a claim for worker's compensation which is genuine. Reporting maladministration and corruption is done at everyone's own risk it would appear - something that no one would imagine that being the case. When you really need their assistance they are not there to help you.
Unfortunately you as so many others thought the system would protect you - this is Australia isn't it? isn't that what you were thinking? - so many others subjected to the same treatment as you and have lost their health and their employment (blacklisted - made destitute and homeless) - in your case it has been exposed in the media which is extremely rare - as your story broke another person by the name of Bimla Chand from Rail Corp has been struggling for the past 3 years and was also branded and lost her job - left without an income - others who have had workers compensation claims have been left without an income or have had their decisions ignored and their employment terminated - the rest have been covered up -the cases of Gerard Crewdson (DOCS) and Val Kerrison (TAFE DEPT OF ED) have been out there for the past 10 years and more and have never been resolved and so many others who cannot be identified because of repercussions - we all applaud you for your extreme courage and hopefully by all this exposure this may help others in their fight for justice to have their names vindicated - it is come unfortunately at great sacrifice where someone's health, career has been threatened. It is the courage of those who keep on reporting the corrupt that will hopefully stop this happening and will do justice to those already affected. The the laws fail to protect anyone or enforced - this is where it all needs to be put out in the open and needs to change - you are correct in saying where would all these other people be without the information being exposed - it is what is called a conscience something that all the corrupt do not possess because of their perverse and twisted minds - what they try and to is destroy your integrity, your health and brand you insane - it is totally unacceptable that a citizen of this country is treated.
The law isn't there to protect you when they hear there is no union involved. Basically the law stinks. What really amazes everyone in your circumstances is that even though you were employee of a Labor electorate and a supporter you received no support. This is what strikes at the core as to why they have shirked responsibility knowing full well you have been responsible for bringing down a paedophile who was left in the system undetected for so long. This happens all the time and is always covered up. Instead of getting the sack you should have been rewarded - yet the rewards have gone to others who fought against you. Including the person who took your job away from you. It is not the first time that the rewards are reversed. The person who exposes the truth is then targetted something that you would never have thought would happen. No one ever believes it and yet so many others have been affected until it happens to them. Philip Arrantz was subjected to this treatment back in the 70's and is regarded as the first person in Australia to have exposed corruption. He was vindicated in the end although it took 20 years and continual struggle to do so - a man of great courage and determination - sadly he passed away at the age of 68 - he wrote a book called Collusion of Powers - regardless it is a shame that nothing has changed since that time and it would seem and appears to be continually repeating itself. Those who are not convicted of crimes are actually provided with bogus "medical retirements" something that Milton because of your courage was not able to do and he would then have been entitled to his full superannuation entitlements.
We all thank you for your contribution to all Australians who have been affected by the same processes and with your immense courage this may be further exposed. The PSA should be ashamed of their nil support and all members should consider seriously resigning from this union immediately to show their support to you and anyone else affected by "piss weak" unions including the Teacher's Federation.
All members of any union should keep this in mind that this may one day happen to them or someone they know.
Re: PSA's GUILTY SILENCE
yes thank you gillian for your post confirming nil support from the PSA-I am still awaiting some explanation from a PSA official concerning their scandalous conduct-perhaps someone from the Crown Solicitor' Office or a Premiers Dept, DOCS or DET official may also care to address the issue of repeated criminal corruption in the NSW State Govt-I know you monitor these posts for evidence of seditious thoughts.
gerard crewdson DOCS 1990 purged HealthQuest 1997
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
Further information regarding Gillian Sneddon - link attached below.
This is follow up of a conversation on radio 2gb with Gillian Sneddon and Phillip Clark on 7.3.08 - Gillian has previously spoken with Ray Hadley on 2gb in an earlier interview some weeks prior to this. This current interview talks about a Clerk by the name of Russell Grove who Gillian approached and who now comes out to his own defence in the Daily Telegraph saying that he didn't tip off Milton Okropolous and suggesting that Ms Sneddon has been selective in the information she has revealed publicly from investigative statements made by the parliamentary investigations undertaken and has drawn on the worst possible scenarios and motives.
Phillip Clark actually says to Gillian - he's (Russell Grove) not calling you a liar!! the assumption made by Russell Grove clearly indicates that Gillian is being selective! - Now those who have been through this same process know that this is what happens to employees when govt department's are desperately trying to cover up their own mistakes. They will do anything to ensure that you are the cause of the problem and accusations will be made against the person who has exposed the corruption. Strange that they will also make the claim that their names (the people throwing the unfounded accusations against the innocent worker) have been slurred and yet the victim in all of this is the person whose name has been smeared and also terminated at the same time just because they have provided the organisation with the truth.
It is very obvious that Milton Okropolous would not have been convicted and would have continued to do what he has done for so many years if Gillian chose to ignore it like so many others have and Gillian gave an example in an earlier interview that her former colleague said that she would never have exposed any of it - in fact she covered her ears not wanting to hear what Gillian had to say about Milton and the information which had been provided to her. This makes you wonder what lengths people will go to protect the guilty and on the other hand what lengths are not made to protect the innocent.
The issue remains that this was a covert police operation and instead Gillian claims that Russell Grove went to Milton Okropolous and ignored her.
Gillian is still persuing her worker's compensation claim against the Parliament she told Phillip Clark.
Gillian Sneddon makes a challenge to Russell Grove is willing to make the statements public to the media and is offering any media out interested there to take the story up if Russell Groves agrees that she is being selective. This also includes and she names people who were involved -Elaine Scholfields Manager of Employee Corporate Services; Michael Saunders, Return to Work Injury Management Co-ordinator- in this interview included was Bill Ferguson from the PSA who was helping Vicki Calder (her former colleague) who made the her statement with Bill Ferguson sat with Vicki while she did so to hinder Gillian's claim for worker's compensation.
Gillian describes her shear hell of being abandoned by the very people she felt she would be protected by as an employee of the Parliament and thought Russell Grove would be protecting her. Gillian does not regret what she did as she assisted the young man who told her what happened.
Gillian doesn't regret what she has done although she does realise however that the world is not as nice a place as she thought it was and she cannot believe how she has been treated as an employee of the legislative assembly. She also said that if this has happened to her what chance do other people have.
Gillian is feeling the same as any other government employee who has been abandoned and betrayed and gone through the same kind of hell. Like any employee she felt she was doing the right thing and would be protected - how we are all led to believe that this is the case. What a nightmare it is when it actually happens to you. Just criminal!
http://2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&id=8&Itemid=41&task=view&limit=10&limitstart=50#top
UPDATE ON GILLIAN SNEDDON 20.5.08
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/whistleblower-rejects-payment-offer/2008/05/19/1211182703284.html
Further insult of a corrupt govt - excerpt from the Sydney Morning Herald 20.5.08
We all know what happens if a deed of release is signed - you will have no further rights - Gillian is right to stand her ground and let's hope she makes them accountable as she has been let down like so many others - where's the PSA Union in all of this.
The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, independent MP Richard Torbay, made the confidential offer two weeks ago. It comprises a $33,166.06 "apology" payment and a redundancy entitlement of $66,830.94.
The unemployed Ms Sneddon said she was struggling to pay her bills and her only income was a workers' compensation payment of about $600 a fortnight. Her salary as an electorate officer before she went on stress leave was almost $70,000 a year.
The offer came after a meeting with Mr Torbay in April about her plight. The payment is conditional on Ms Sneddon signing a deed of release against Parliament but leaves the way open for her to take action against Parliament's insurer, Allianz.
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
MORE CONTROVERSY REQUIRED
The PSA is an absolute captive of the Labor Party - The ruling faction use the title 'Rank and File' as one of the greatest lies ever told - the only 'rank and file' support they have is with delegates who have their snouts in the same trough - these troglogdytes 'turn out the vote' in the union's elections once every four years in favour of their factional leaders and thereby some of them get to come to Sydney once a month to the PSA's Central Council for a nice little visit to the Big Smoke and a 'few drinks', after a meeting that rarely lasts more than half an hour, unless it's to ram through outrageous rule changes like the ones described in previous posts.
The whole thing looks more like a protection racket out of the 1930's bootlegging era in the US, than anything you could call a genuine workers organisation. These 'professional' union bureaucrats just piss on any member(s) whenever they feel like it. Anyone who tries to stand up to them is vilified and victimised - they have a standing practise of dobbing their members in to their public service bosses if you oppose them or criticise anything they do. ( or they give a 'green' light to the sacking of members who oppose them - so much for 'solidarity'). They did this to a very prominent union delegate in my Department - suddenly her job was abolished in a 'restructuring', because she was too troublesome for her own bosses and the PSA's Senior Executive Service.
These Commissars of the Labour Movement are very well paid for their 'efforts' on behalf of members - the PSA General Secretary, John Cahill, is paid $200,000 a year, but that's not all folks, he gets at least $50,000 a year from his Board membership of Macquarie Generation, courtesy of the Iemma Government, so all up he grosses at least $250,000 a year - would John Robertson, head of Unions NSW, get that much? Cahill therefore has 50,000 reasons to toe the Government line, or risk losing his Board seat.
No way he's going to call all his members out on strike over a little issue like electricity privatisation, or pay rises for PSA members, or defending job cuts. No way, just sporadic little outbreaks of industrial action here and there to keep the members fooled into believing that the PSA stands for something.
It gets 'better' - the ALP Right Faction appointed Assistant General Secretary, Shane O'Brien, gets at least $150,000 a year - and never worked a day in his life as a NSW public servant, as far as I am aware.
The other PSA Assistant General Secretary, a Left ALP appointment, Steve Turner, came from a union organiser's job in New Zealand, which is a significant qualification at least he gets the same money - $150K. Not much 'pay equity' there, eh Steve?
These are extraordinary salaries for union leaders. Imagine having to take a pay cut to enter Parliament? That's usually only the case with the likes of merchant bankers like Turnbull.
These Aristrocrats of Labor are ably supported by a union apparatus which by the end of the year will exclude all dissenters, because of the way the voting method has changed. Eliminating proportional representation on the PSA's Central Council is an act that even Joh Bjelke-Petersen would have been proud of. And they have the sheer gall to describe this as 'democratic', presumably because people still actually get a vote, just like they did in Queensland under Joh! They also get a 'vote' in Zimbabwe under Mugabe, don't they?
If the PSA keeps going they way it is, it will become the basket case of the NSW trade union movement. It lost 800 members last year according to its own published figures and will lose even more as the public sector workforce ages, not to mention the impact of more job losses in the public sector if Costa decides to really take an axe to expenditure, which he always threatens to do! There'll be even fewer union members and those who remain will be defenceless.
All you PSA members out there - you have one chance later this year to vote these 'Snowballs' out. ( A little reference to 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell). Make no mistake, the present ruling clique has no interest in maintaining your jobs, only their own. Vote for the Progressive PSA candidates for some decent, sober representation. Another 4 years of this clique misrepresenting PSA members will be disastrous.
THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL PSA PUBLICATION ( in case you hadn't guessed)
Re: Controversy Erupts in the Public Service Association
thanks captain swing for your insight into the black hole of nepotism cronyism and stalinist thuggery that is the PSA-it all rings true with my own experience of them-I tried to seek orders in the IRC in 2004 against them as a member to get them to do their job in my case and I wasn't even allowed in their building to serve the legal documents-not surprsingly my applivcation was thrown out by union labour party stooge judge staunton-but I'm glad I stood up to them all the same-I've been frozen out of the psa since trying to take them to court-we need more people standing up to them so good on you for exposing these gutless greedy lying bastards in public- i hope you get votes enough to throw them all out but no doubt they got the whole show rigged already
gerard crewdson psa member 1998-?
Gutless, greedy, lying bastards
Let's add the N.S.W. Teachers Federation to that apt description.
PSA Spineless as is the Labor Government
Re: PSA Spineless as is the Labor Government
thank you gillian for your update and comments. You have summed the situation up so perfectly in a few words:
"the NSW Labour Governmnt isn't interested in the Worker only in their own advancement whatever the cost!"
The cost is enormous. It didn't start with Carr but I feel that since 1995 the Labour Govt have thoroughly debased the NSW public service from top to bottom and created a climate in which someone like Milton Orkopulos could operate unhindered for so long. I voted for Labour in the 1995 election and had voted Labour in previous elections but never again will I do so. Your actions have given extra heart to others who have been battling NSW State Labour Govt and union corruption for many years. Thanks Gillian.
Gerard Crewdson
The Lousy Scum and their Hand-Picked Judiciary
Gillian, unfortunately the lousy scum have hand-picked their
judiciary and the majority of N.S.W. judges and tribunal members will
make the findings that the Labor Party wants. Going to court does
nothing but deplete our savings. The P.S.A.? They ARE the Labor Party.
They are the very same scum we are opposing. So how are they going to
help us?
I come from a long line of coalminers and Labor voters. And I will never vote Labor again.
The
only satisfaction we can get, and the only way to punish them, is to
expose them as we have done here on Sydney Indymedia.
Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.
Re: The Lousy Scum and their Hand-Picked Judiciary
I think advising people not to go to court to enforce their legal rights when those legal rights have been monstrously abused simply lets the perpetrators get away with their misdeeds and makes the problems in the judicial system become even worse. I speak from long experience. I therefore support Gillian in what she is doing and hope that she will succeed-firstly for her own wellbeing and secondly for the good of society. And I do not agree that indymedia is eefective in exposing corruption.
gerard crewdson
Post new comment