Union CFO required

Unions NSW is looking for a new Chief Financial Officer.  See advertisement here.

Whilst there seems no evidence or suggestions of any financial malfeasance within Unions NSW, the same can’t be said about some of the unions it represents; Unions NSW is after all the peak body for the state’s trade unions.

I will leave to Cats to make their own assessments and comments on the requirements for the candidate.  But yet again, they are offering to pay extra for a female candidate:

Superannuation: 9.5% employer contributions 11.5% for female staff.

Here is my question for the wise directors of Unions NSW, how much does a man identifying as a woman get paid and how much does a woman identifying as a man get paid?  And what is the pay rate for a “queer” or “intersexual” as in LGBTIQ?

The intellectual challenges of being politically correct never seem to end.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Union CFO required

  1. Clearly the female will be paid less and, to make up for it, her employer superannuation contributions are higher in order to compensate.

  2. Tel

    Here is my question for the wise directors of Unions NSW, how much does a man identifying as a woman get paid and how much does a woman identifying as a man get paid? And what is the pay rate for a “queer” or “intersexual” as in LGBTIQ?

    Would it be OK to identify as a woman only during work hours, and then identify as a man at home? We could call it an arrangement.

    I can supply my own change of clothes but I would of course demand two separate change rooms, one for the morning and one for the afternoon.

  3. Crossie

    Would it be OK to identify as a woman only during work hours, and then identify as a man at home? We could call it an arrangement.

    Why not? After all every other arrangement and brain fart is given official respect.

  4. hzhousewife

    Hmm, what say the unions and the ARHC?

  5. Roger

    Would a successful male applicant supporting a stay at home wife and children be entitled to c. 20%?

  6. Surely we have discrimination laws against this sort of crap.
    Or maybe those laws only apply to blokes like me….what do they call me…Cis gendered or some such pooffo pinko blue haired dykes created?

    🙂 yeah yeah I know I’m such a sexist prick.

  7. OneWorldGovernment

    When you look at pictures from the ME you have to wonder what some buildings in Australia will look like once the fighting starts here in our various Capital Cities.

  8. Wow.
    Personal Leave: 10 days per annum (accumulative).
    Annual Leave: 5 week’s annual leave with 17.5% leave loading.

    No mention of Domestic Violence Leave though. Still, 7 weeks leave p.a. isn’t too shabby for a 35 hour week.

  9. Des Deskperson

    What is interesting here is that the ad doesn’t mention a Unions NSW Enterprise Agreement and it seem likely from the wording – ‘salary based on skills and experience’ – that this position would be staffed instead through an individual contract that probably wouldn’t have to be certified by the FWC and wouldn’t, therefore, be subject to the anti-sex discrimination provisions of the Fair Work Act.

    It would still be subject to the Sex Discrimination Act, but that Act has provision for ‘positive’ discrimination to overcome disadvantage and Unions NSW could no doubt mount an argument that female career patterns disadvantage them when it comes to super – and there is a case for this argument.

    The really interesting issue here is the contrast between unionism’s strong defence of the formal wage- fixing structure and its apparent willingness to work outside this structure to get the people they want. Judging by the other union job ads linked to this link, it appears to be fairly standard for unions, at least for middle management and above.

  10. .

    I was going to ask the same as Sydney Boy.

    Superannuation is front-loaded government stealing.

    We know in the next major war, it will be taken off to the Treasury and spent on arms or provisions.

    Our debt is dangerously high. One more calamity and we’ll slide to 100% debt to GDP.

  11. a happy little debunker

    Considering the union movement remains committed to fighting for 15% employer paid super – offering 11.5% or less is ripping of your workers!

  12. Sydney Boy

    Complaints to Mr Murray Black, Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency (yes, such a government department exists, sigh); 02 9432 7000; [email protected]

    I doubt a more beta male you will come across.

  13. Des Deskperson

    “Complaints to Mr Murray Black, Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency (yes, such a government department exists, sigh)”

    The WGEA can only monitor employers efforts on gender equity and publicly name and shame them – as well as threaten to exclude them from Commonwealth government contracts – if they don’t do enough.

    My understanding is that if you wanted to seek legal redress against gender discrimination in the workplace than you would have to apply to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner under the Sex Discrimination Act
    1984.

    As I indicated above, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has the power to exempt gender based discrimination from sanction where that discrimination is deemed necessary to address disadvantage,

    Mr Murray Black is one of only 4 males working in the agency.

  14. Empire GTHO Phase III

    Orwellian. For $6M+ pa of OPM, private industry has to put up with this shit:

    The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is an Australian Government statutory agency charged with promoting and improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. Non-public sector employers with 100 or more employees are required to report to the Agency annually against gender equality indicators.

    https://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/new-director-wgea-appointed

  15. duncanm

    gender wage gap – there it is in plain sight.

  16. Tim Neilson

    We know in the next major war, it will be taken off to the Treasury and spent on arms or provisions.

    I think you’re being unduly optimistic Dot. In the next major war our super will be looted for an urgent upgrade to the armed forces’ counselling, diversity and affirmative action capabilities.

  17. Louis

    Well that’s fair. Women are disadvantaged by retiring earlier and living longer.

  18. .

    Don’t forget the war crimes snitch programme…on the other hand, I apologise for my lack of foresight!

  19. Up The Workers!

    And precisely how much is the “kickback” that the A.L.P.’s criminal NSW franchise-holder, “Dishonest Eddie” Obeid and his itinerant Left Testicle, get from the extra sexist superannuation contribution?

    Given that the A.L.P. subscribes to the fairy-tale gibberish that sex is not fixed, but a matter of temporary personal political choice, I take it that all a male applicant has to do in order to increase his superannuation to the higher level, is to merely gillard that his sex currently chooses to express itself as female, and Hey Presto, Bob’s your Aunty!

  20. Alexi the Conservative Russian

    “Complaints to Mr Murray Black, Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency (yes, such a government department exists, sigh)” If the Greens have their way he will have to be relabelled to Mr Green/Rainbow or whatever.

  21. entropy

    Such a policy demonstrates the dominance of the teachers, nurses and other public sector unions in the movement today.

  22. Kneel

    “Superannuation: 9.5% employer contributions 11.5% for female staff.”

    Clearly discrimination against a minority!
    Men are a minority as below, how can this be allowed?
    From ABS website:
    SEX RATIOS AND MEDIAN AGES – Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSAs), 2016

    Sex Ratio

    Median Age(a)
    GCCSA
    males per 100 females

    years
    Greater Sydney
    98.5

    35.8
    Greater Melbourne
    97.7

    35.7
    Greater Brisbane
    98.0

    35.2
    Greater Adelaide
    96.9

    38.6
    Greater Perth
    99.9

    35.8
    Greater Hobart
    98.7

    39.7
    Greater Darwin
    109.5

    33.5
    Australian Capital Territory
    98.8

    34.7
    Total Greater Capital Cities
    98.4

    35.9
    Total Australia
    98.5

    37.2

  23. duncanm

    Sam Kennard has the right idea on the WGEA. Get stuffed.
    http://www.selfstorage.org.au/announcements/kennards-self-storage-owner-lashes-out-at-australia-gender-equality-agency-after-being-named-in-repo

    As an added bonus, the other arm of the family (Kennards Hire) sponsored the Australia WRC round in Coffs.

    Good blood in that lot.

  24. David

    The higher rate of super for females is said to be required because women live longer (on average) than men and hence need more super. If they go down the path of providing needs based benefits, I wonder how much super they should provide obese black male smokers?

  25. Nathan

    I can’t find it in the small print but I am sure somewhere there is a requirement ‘to know the going rate for an 8 ball of coke and ladies (people?) of the nights dinner be able to procure both on request. Taking both to the interview would be considered favourably’

  26. Tim Neilson

    Well that’s fair. Women are disadvantaged by retiring earlier and living longer.

    Horrendous isn’t it.

    Feminists should stick it to the patriarchy by topping themselves. That’ll show’em.

  27. Mundi

    DuncanM raises a very good point.

    You don’t have to fill out WGEA form, and if you don’t the penalty in basically nothing (unless you contract with government).

    However to ensure compliance, WGEA call you out and blast your name all over there website and in media. And they do it in a misleading way that implies you are sexually descriminating.

    With won’t there liberals stand up and SHUT IT DOWN. It should be a job for ABS if anything.

  28. .

    The higher rate of super for females is said to be required because women live longer (on average) than men and hence need more super. If they go down the path of providing needs based benefits, I wonder how much super they should provide obese black male smokers?

    Maybe they can work for longer and save better. After all, aren’t women CEOs better than men?

  29. Rococo Liberal

    I assume that all this means is that the female will get a lower take-home pay, because Super is included in overall salary.

  30. Des Deskperson

    ‘I assume that all this means is that the female will get a lower take-home pay, because Super is included in overall salary.’

    No, I believe that we are talking her about the employers super contribution, which is additional to salary – which includes the employee contribution – and is part of the ‘total remuneration package’ – which in this case would almost certainly also include a car for personal use, a parking space and other typical senior level perks.

    And I have always understood that the argument for higher super employer contributions for women was that because they tend to have interrupted careers, they retire on less super than men who retire at the same time and have had the same overall working life. There is something of a case for this argument.

  31. duncanm

    Maybe they should work for longer and save better. After all, aren’t women CEOs better than men?

    FIFY.

    They live longer — ergo, they’re working life is longer.

    I’d like to see the stats on workplace death and disability by gender — colour me pink if men don’t suffer disproprotionately.

  32. I am Spartacus

    And I have always understood that the argument for higher super employer contributions for women was that because they tend to have interrupted careers, they retire on less super than men who retire at the same time and have had the same overall working life. There is something of a case for this argument.

    Do you work for government Des? You can’t at the same time say “they tend to have interrupted careers” and “have had the same overall working life”. This would be called an oxymoron.

    There are lots of people, men and women who have interrupted/disjointed careers. Stuff like that happens all the time. Only here however, one group is “compensated”.

    But if there really is a systemic failure that biases women, it is the role of government (through the transfer system) to seek to address. It is not the role of employers.

    IMHO.

  33. Des Deskperson

    Don’t be a smartarse, Mr Spartacus, you know what I mean. Research indicates that women in similar jobs on similar salaries to men never the less end up with less super on retirement because their careers trend to be interrupted, mainly by parenting and caring responsibilities.

    Having said that, any attempt to arbitrarily impose Unions NSW’s approach on the workforce as a whole could be unfair and discriminatory, largely for the reasons you have pointed out. It could also be argued that it would involve sexist and paternalistic assumptions about women and their roles.

    On the other hand, I can see where an individual employer, having researched the situation in his/her organisation and wanting to be fair, minimise employment disadvantage and attract and retain female staff with the capabilities it needs, might want to introduce such an arrangement.

    I’ve no idea if this was the way Unions NSW went about it.

  34. Tim Neilson

    And I have always understood that the argument for higher super employer contributions for women was that because they tend to have interrupted careers, they retire on less super than men who retire at the same time and have had the same overall working life. There is something of a case for this argument.

    Only if their “interrupted careers”are caused by that employer forcing them out for an unwanted career interruption at shotgun point. Employment should be about being remunerated for results. It isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be, a sort of upmarket version of the social welfare system.

    Employers don’t force couples to elect the woman as primary caregiver, nor do they force women to become single mothers, nor do they dictate any other aspect of their employees’ private lives that is responsible for women having “interrupted careers”. Why should an employer be expected to pay for these kind of lifestyle situations?

    And as I noted above, if women don’t like living longer than men they can always top themselves. If they choose not to, employers shouldn’t have to pay for that either.

  35. I am Spartacus

    Don’t be a smartarse, Mr Spartacus

    Dear Des,

    In this politically correct charged environment, be careful with the title you give me. I could be a Zi or Xe or whatever.

    But to the essence, perhaps “research”** does show this, but again, this is a social policy issue. Unions are doing this so that they can pressure governments to do this who will pressure private enterprise to do this. If there is a social problem, there should be a social security solution. But I await to see how the TIQs (from the LGBTIQs) will be accommodated in legislation.

    ** WRT research, in as much as gender pay gap “research” is utter nonsense (not accounting for differentials in jobs and experience), I would need to be convinced that ACROSS the economy, there is a superannuation gap. For example, contractors (who for example tend to be men and very popular in the construction industry) are not obliged to provide for their own superannuation. Ditto for many other male and female small business owners (who are not technical employees).

  36. Sydney Boy

    I’d like to see the stats on workplace death and disability by gender — colour me pink if men don’t suffer disproprotionately.

    Simples. Go to Safework Australia’s website. Last FY, 94% of workers killed in the workplace were men. So men die at a rate of THIRTY times that of women at work. But even after pointing that out to the WGEA, all that has happened is that I received a condescending email from Mr Murray Black.

Comments are closed.