It’s not the pro-union industrial relations law. No, no … it’s weak management.
And given the very weak labour market fiogures, labour productivity has ticked up for a nanosecond. Problem solved.
In any case, the government has a solution for lousy management.
Mr Shorten is seeking to broaden the debate by allocating $12 million over four years by establishing the Centre for Workplace Leadership, which picks up on discussions at forums in 2009 and 2011.
He said the Centre would boost leadership capability in workplace of all sizes including those in regional areas and small to medium enterprise. The Centre would:
*be the Australian expert on workplace management and leadership and improving the productivity of Australian workplaces through leadership;
*deliver quality training for leaders and managers on effective leadership, workplace culture and people management practices and connect leaders to training and development from other providers;
* promote and disseminate practical, relevant research, including surveys, on workplace change and improvement;
* lead the public debate on the importance of good leadership, workplace culture and people management and on the interdependencies between high performing and productive workplaces, effective management practices and quality jobs; and
* drive a broader movement to ‘do things differently at work’ by recognising that productivity ‘happens’ at work and that leadership is a crucial mechanism to improve productivity.
One wonders what the business schools have been doing. Nothing, apparently.
Here’s a tip, Bill. Just rant on about the importance of management quality – which is, by the way, endogenous (I thought you might have learnt that in your MBA) – it would be so much cheaper.
Look out for all the government’s favoured sons and daughters picking up the loot being spent on this latest ‘teach-them-how-suck-eggs’ venture, including some sort of financial transfer to the union movement.
After all, the union movement knows a thing or two about business, what with the ACTU downsizing and outsourcing (normally a term which would require mouth being washed out with soap) some of its functions.
And, of course, it is well known that that unions are appalling employers and are subject to a higher than proportional number of claims for unfair dismissal.
But, no doubt, the unions will be well represented on the Centre’s advisory board.
I honestly thought this sort of thing went out with the Ark, or at least in 1993. But apparently not.
UPDATE: There is a certain irony to Shorten rushing through Parliament the changes to the Transfer of Business provisions in FWA which attempt to nobble the Newman’s government’s attempt to outsource the provision of services. Good one, Bill. Actually, it will mean that those non-government agencies will simply refuse to employ ex-public servants.
But when it comes to the (deficient) review of the Fair Work Act, the government is in no hurry to make any changes unless they are agreed by both business and unions. Actually, Bill, being in government is about acting in the national interest not playing some sort of puerile game of winners and losers.
Gee, who’da thunk it?
Rabz
15 Oct 12 at 10:39 am
Leadership?? What would these useless soshalist rejects know about that? Read it in a book shorty did you ?
Borisgodunov
15 Oct 12 at 10:42 am
Actually they’ve been acting like we are their servants, not the other way around. I think they’ve forgotten they are the ones elected by us to work for us. Very dictatorial relationship this mob exude and demonstrate so by their actions. They are the public’s servants. They will be reminded of this come the election (praise Gaia it comes soon).
National interest? Would they know the meaning? No. It’s all about Party interests. ALP: We are us.
Gab
15 Oct 12 at 10:44 am
“Actually, it will mean that those non-government agencies will simply refuse to employ ex-public servants.”
Under the Transfer of Business rules, outsourcing means the instruments transfer regardless of who ends up doing the work.
2dogs
15 Oct 12 at 11:27 am
Outsourcing is only an evil when the National/Liberal Party capitalist running dogs do it.
When the ACTU does it, well it’s called “greater focus on campaigining”…
Campaiging for work’s rights, mmmm? Campaigning against Union corruption and fraudulent use of member’s funds, nah. Campaigning for a Labor government’s no doubt, after all we have to pay back all those dollars spent against Work Choices.
Talleyrand
15 Oct 12 at 11:33 am
He should stick to Quad Watch and pie appreciation.
Keith
15 Oct 12 at 11:34 am
The Hon Member for Maribyrnong is working at cross purposes. The quickest way to get rid of bad bosses is to reduce barriers to entry for new entrepreneurs and the redeployment of new staff. The solution to bad businesses is to allow them to fail, not prop them up. Perhaps there are other criteria the Trade Union Party use to decide which businesses go broke. Not that the Liberal(sic) Party would actually change anything, just pander to a different set of special interests…
Forester
15 Oct 12 at 11:39 am
“After all, the union movement knows a thing or two about business……..”. Indeed it does, who could forget ACTU Solo and Bourke’s?
A 100% failure rate is not to be taken lightly.
HRT
15 Oct 12 at 11:42 am
Shortened must think the ALP will be in power forever. What a prat.
Steve of Ferny Hills
15 Oct 12 at 12:17 pm
Forester,
I think Bill’s idea of ‘bad boss’ is different to yours.
The model of business he understands involves arrows marked “Material” and “Union” flowing into a black box marked “Stuff Happens Here”, and arrows coming out the otherside – one marked “Money”, which flows to “Union”, and another that flows through “Government” back to “Union”.
Aqualung
15 Oct 12 at 12:24 pm
MBAs are like arseholes these days. Everyone’s got one.
Shorten might be under the illusion he learnt something when he did his, but it wouldn’t be about management. I don’t believe he could run a chook raffle.
DavidLeyonhjelm
15 Oct 12 at 12:49 pm
Setting up boltholes just in case any of his mates lose their seats at the next election.
Pickles
15 Oct 12 at 12:57 pm
Outsourcing – On of the great cons.
Contestability is the other one.
In the 90s our school had a hoist equipped bus supplied because the students (for the most part) where unable to use conventional transport. For a long time, the accountants in head office had regarded this as a waste of money, so they decided to audit the use of these buses in an effort to prove what they had already assumed.
One Monday morning a dapper looking character from a Brisbane based private accountancy firm appeared with a thick bundle of documents in his briefcase.
These were given to me, with instructions that every time the bus was used, ten fields of data would be recorded for later analysis. Fields included purpose of journey, numbers and age of students, distance covered, fuel consumed, etc.
I told him to get stuffed. We were far to busy supervising kids to be collecting data. At the same time I phoned a contact in central office, and discovered that this firm was being paid $30000 for the exercise of collecting and analysing the data.
No data was posted from my school.
The buses were phased out, of course. That was always the intention, but it was a salutary reminder of how outsourcing to private enterprise always increases costs to the taxpayer, and wastes time.
1735099
15 Oct 12 at 12:58 pm
Great story Numbers. You must be a real hit at parties.
Infidel Tiger
15 Oct 12 at 1:02 pm
Look further at how this program will be delivered.
A portion will go to the those of the ilk of Heather Sellout, formerly of the Australian Industry Group who seem to view their charter as trashing Australian Industry.
Yea Heather, if thoust support the Red Queen thy reward will be in Heaven …. or at the very least an RBA Board Seat.
The remainder of the cash will go to Union organisations to educate the bosses …. and free up any cash not spent by Craig/Michael on hookers to spend on the ALP election campaign.
Leigh Lowe
15 Oct 12 at 1:05 pm
Numbers @ 12:58pm
A great argument for voucher funded, autonomous schools! You would have had to spend you own money on what you wanted. You could have turned out revolutionaries at a fraction of the cost of the Teacher’s union…
Forester
15 Oct 12 at 1:33 pm
Oh are we playing the game where a single instance of anecdotal evidence (no matter how credible) can be used to draw ridiculously broad generalisations with no real evidence or analysis?
That’s always fun.
tgs
15 Oct 12 at 1:50 pm
“Shorten might be under the illusion he learnt something when he did his, but it wouldn’t be about management. I don’t believe he could run a chook raffle.”
Sure he could, but the winner would get a pigeon and the proceeds would be funneled off to the ACTU under the guise of ‘administrative costs’.
Besides, I prefer the saying “couldn’t organize a root in a brothel with a fist full of fifties”. Of course, the scope for corruption. Would be greater in this scenario too…
Twodogs
15 Oct 12 at 2:01 pm
Yes numbers, paying less for the same thing is a “con”.
You must make a great product manager at Harvey Norman.
.
15 Oct 12 at 2:14 pm
“Outsourcing – On of the great cons.”
The instance you are referring to smells of cronyism. Either it is cost-effective or it is not. If its the latter, the only question is “who is doing favours for whom?”
Twodogs
15 Oct 12 at 2:23 pm
Numbers, your example contains neither outsourcing nor contestability.
So when a publicly funded entity phases out a service, privatisation is to blame???
You must be smoking some really awesome weed.
wreckage
15 Oct 12 at 2:28 pm
Don’t forget – Shorten is one of the rising stars of the Labor party.
Good luck with that.
H B Bear
15 Oct 12 at 2:40 pm
Not to mention all those private, expensive training courses, big-name speakers, motivational lecturers etc., ad nauseum.
John A
16 Oct 12 at 6:47 am