With resentment growing over the Government's removal of PS compensation rights including 'journey' coverage, the ALP has announced it would - if elected - reintroduce some form of income protection for public sector employees who are injured travelling to and from work.
There is growing resentment in the public sector about new Government legislation which removes the right to claim workers' compensation for injuries sustained travelling to and from work; during lunch and other breaks. The new laws also make it much harder for workers with stress-related injuries to get the support they need.
However at ALP National Conference last weekend, a motion was passed to reintroduce income protection for public sector employees who are injured travelling to and from work or during breaks. "...Labor will reintroduce income protection by amending the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act for the purposes of employees who are injured travelling to and from work and during breaks in working hours..."
The ALP announcement is a step in the right direction, but we need push the Opposition harder on the fine details. This is a very complex matter and the devil will be in the detail. We are urging members to send an online message of encouragement to the ALP.
Keeping the Pressure on the Govt too! As well as encouraging the ALP to do the right thing, CPSU members are also urged to contact the Liberal and National MPs and Senators who supported the unfair changes to let them know how you feel. Follow this link to find contact details for your local Liberal / National MPs and Senators.
Read a passionate letter from a Defence worker to his local member.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I'm curious about the changes to compensation rights for Public Servants I'm just cynical enough to assume that any compensation changes wont affect the politicians compensation rights eventhough they themselves are Public Servants.
I was just wondering whether it might be worthwhile obtaining legal advice whether their is an implied obligation on part of our employing authority to continue the previous existing compensation rights if an existing CA or AWA was negotiated prior to 16 April 2007 as such rights were implied in these CA's or AWA's, and if not, we should have the right to renegotiate these employment contracts (or at least receive compensation for the loss of such a valuable right) on the basis that a fundamental, and valuable part of our employment contract has been terminated unilaterally, notwithstanding any rights of the Federal Parliament to pass such legislation.
Rod
LETTER TO TONY ABBOTT
Dear Tony,
As my Federal Parliamentary Member I am contacting you regarding my concerns about recent amendments to the COMCARE legislation and changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. As an Australian Public Service employee I am particularly concerned over changes to travel protection and stress related claims.
Under the changes an Australian Public Service employee no longer has a right to claim compensation for injuries sustained travelling to and from work, as well as during lunch and other breaks.
It is obvious that to attend and leave the workplace one is required to travel; travel is integral to the working day. The demands of today’s working environment has an effect on ones state of being. These effects are not mutually exclusive to the activity of travelling, which require attention and care. Furthermore, these changes in legislation do not encourage workers to engage in physical activities such as cycling to work or mid day walks. In this day and age of increased obesity and environmental concerns we should be encouraging people to use motor vehicles less and engage more in exercise. A healthy workforce has many benefits both economically and more importantly for family life.
What was the rationale for these changes and how will the public service and their families benefit from them?
Labours policy is to “…reintroduce income protection by amending the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act for the purposes of employees who are injured travelling to and from work and during breaks in working hours…”.
I encourage you to look into this issue with the welfare of families at heart.
Yours sincerely,
Thie recent change to the rights and conditions of commonwealth employees by removing the cover of workers compensation whilst travelling to and from your place of work is bullshit! Why would you be travelling at this time every day to a specific location any way?? to go to work !! Hello' because your employer expects that you will be at your place of work before time and be firing on all cylinders as soon as the gates open. C'mon, and don't get hit by an irate customer crossing the road in your lunch hour or should I say half hour because we don't have time for a lunch hour, we will have been expected to foresee this and take out insurance to cover this eventuality.
Please, I am not a sinic but this is a retrograde step in the workplace. I have personally talked to a multitude of employees that saw the "e-mail" from management and none of them read the message in it's entirety, maybe because it was disguised as another long winded proclamation, however when alerted to the true content all agreed that this is just another step to kill off the workers resilience. So why has this been allowed to happen ?? where are our Union representatives' ?? Why has this not been an issue on Kevin Rudd's agenda ?? workforce relations has been a big issue how come this is a non event ?? Is the worker becoming unimportant, well that's a silly statement for a start, you only have to take a look at the crestfallen workforce to see that an election to rid this country of a lying Howard government is all they want for Christmas. The worker can deliver this expected change of government but he /she needs to see some strong action for the social welfare mentality in this country. We are not just an economy, we are a community and want to be a strong respected compassionate country.
OK, I'm off my soap box now so what are the unions going to do? we don't want rhetoric from some radical union halfwit, we want common sense and strong leadership. The kind that can rebuild the demoralised fabric of this society, bring it on !
Graeme
In the inevitable reforms for health and compensation in Australia under the new labor governement in order to get the Lawyers and Insurance companies out of Health and Trauma care wemust adopt the New Zealand Accident Compensation Laws that treat injuries with the best medical available and prevent litigation against the medical staff and other parties involved the the accident. It does not remove criminal negligence which can be persued by police in the courts.
Thisimplies the health budget would be spent on health only!
The idea is that the Commonwealth treat and rehabilitate the injured and support the disabled to achieve their maximum self reliance.
Compo for travel to work or at work injuries would then be so much simpler to manage. The onus would go equally onto both employer who does not want high ACCC levies and the employer who wants to stay healthy and would get no golden handshake from faking otherwise.
--
Ray
With the announcements in the changes to workers compensation will we (the union) argue for an increase in wages to cover the additional cost in relation to work cover or personal income insurance or will we lobby to have this insurance (personal income protection and additional medical costs) viewed as a work related and therefore a tax deductible expense?
Further were the increases in my medical insurance premiums related to this issue? The additional burden that these institutions will now carry is now passed on to our already budget strapped members. I am now faced with either reducing my cover or joining the Medicare throng for medical debts. So has the reduction in work cover really saved the government any money?
Two steps backwards zero steps forward. At this rate a worker in a 3rd world country will have more rights and protection than us. When will this government realise that part of living in a civilised and wealthy country is that we are suppose to have civilised conditions of employment, after all we are told this is what our soldier’s fort and died for … our rights and our democracy … I wonder what they would of thought, perhaps “hang on mate I didn’t die for this!”
This legislation affects all of us in particular the large number of new public servants we have in this Department particularly now that so many people from outside the Public Service are winning jobs over existing employees like myself who came in via the previous entrance exams and have a large amount of sick, long service and annual leave.
Those people who have been appointed from outside the service and have limited leave would be in a difficult position if they were unfortunate enough to have an accident before or after work or during their lunch hour. Prior to the new legislation if a person was in the unfortunate situation they would paid as though deemed to be on leave while their claim for compensation was being processed. However, this would no longer be the case and newer public servants could run out of leave and I assume have to go on sickness benefits in addition to having to cover their own medical costs.
Food for thought
I have already raised a number of issues with Mr Dutton who always has an answer for everything and when he runs out of answers blames it on Labour.
I have been to a number of meetings now and people are not happy Jan with the legislation plus the current DoHA offer. I did complete the survey.
Your sincerely
Terry
Just watched the first installment of the ABC mini series on the MUA & the attempts by Corrigan to destroy the MUA. I thought the name of the series "Bastard Boys" appropriately describes the actions of the Howard government in removing Federal Public Servants compo rights.
Rod
Stephen
A lot of bloody good contacting my local member will do – he is well known for not replying to phone calls, letter or emails from constituents.
However, just this once !!!!!!!
Toni
Copy of my message to Kym Richardson FYI...
Dear Mr Richardson
I live in the electorate of Kingston and wok in Adeladie as an employee of the taxation office. I am very concerned about the recent changes made to the compensation provisions effecting my employment. I am now no longer covered for travel from home to work and am not even covered if I injure myself during my lunch break. I understand that you voted in favour of these changes. This email is to advise you that as a consequemnce of the manner in which you have exercised your vote in parliament that I will not be casting my vote for you at the next federal election.
Ben
Thank you Stephen,
I too, have concerns about the workers compensation changes. But I was under the impression that the legislation had been enacted. Surely the time to lobby the members concerned would have been before the legislation was introduced into the Parliament? I heard very little from the CPSU on the matter until very recently.
My main concern with the change is the danger I constantly face from Canberra cyclists during my daily walk from the bus to work. If I am hit by a car I believe my injuries would be covered under the driver's compulsory 3rd party insurance. However the far greater risk I am exposed to by cyclists who share facilities such as footpaths with pedestrians Should I be injured by a cyclist on the way to work then I would be forced to rely on a common law remedy such as negligence to purse any compensation.
Therefore I shall contact Gary Nairn regarding the reinstatement of our compensation conditions, but I will also be suggesting that Mr Nairn uses his good offices with his state and territory counterparts to institute a small registration fee on cyclists to extend third party insurance so that the injuries they cause can be compensated under a no fault system.
In return for my support on this matter I would appreciate the CPSU lobbying state and territory governments to introduce this system
In Unity
Michael
This legislation affects all of us in particular the large number of new public servants we have in this Department particularly now that so many people from outside the Public Service are winning jobs over existing employees like myself who came in via the previous entrance exams and have a large amount of sick, long service and annual leave.
Those people who have been appointed from outside the service and have limited leave would be in a difficult position if they were unfortunate enough to have an accident before or after work or during their lunch hour. Prior to the new legislation if a person was in the unfortunate situation they would paid as though deemed to be on leave while their claim for compensation was being processed. However, this would no longer be the case and newer public servants could run out of leave and I assume have to go on sickness benefits in addition to having to cover their own medical costs.
Thank you but I am more than aware of the WC changes. Short sighted in the extreme with the justification of cost cutting I believe. But what a furphy as healthy people are far less a burden on Medicare. BTW I was hit by a delivery while riding my bicycle to work September last year when fortunately I was covered by WC. I am no longer riding.
At least this person had accured sick leave, whereas this is not an option for those of us on AWA. Our sick leave is 'at managers discretion', not exactly the most comforting of phrases.
I wonder if DFAT are in breach of the Legal Services Directions issued by the Attorney General insofar as the following obligations are concerned? Action should be taken against them if they are:
LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTIONS 2005
http://cpsuweb.blogspot.com/2007/05/with-resentment-growing-over.html
3.1 An FMA agency is to report as soon as possible to the Attorney-General or OLSC on significant issues that arise in the provision of legal services, especially in handling claims and conducting litigation. These issues will include matters where:
(a) the size of the claim, the identity of the parties or the nature of the matter raises sensitive legal, political or policy issues
(d) a significant precedent for other agencies could be established, either on a point of law or because of its potential significance for other agencies,
Peter Costello's Chief-of-Staff involved in a hit-and-run outside parliament house at 7pm "on the way back to work". Well given the same Govt only recently precluded accidents during journeys to and from work from workers compensation this man is a casualty in more ways than one including of the Governements new amended workers compensation exclusions. Hopefully this incident brings home to the Government the impact of their new laws. I wonder if Peter Costello is still comfortable about the fact that precluding accidents like this from compensation entitlement is saving Comcare millions of dollars. Anyone else and they wouldn't care at all but this one is 'close to home' for the Government and given they actually know the man perhaps they'll actually care which wouldn't be the case for normal public servants. Maybe they'll do him a special favour that they wouldn't do for others. It's not what you know but who you know that counts.
Post a Comment