Management insist they don't want workers worse off, but their clauses say otherwiseAt yesterday’s bargaining meeting, we spent a lot of time working through management’s proposed organisational change clause. Management is saying their intent is to protect psychosocial safety, but the detail points in a very different direction. When you actually look at what they are proposing, it is about reducing consultation, reducing communication, and giving management more room to push change through quickly with fewer obligations to impacted staff. That is not good change management. That is not how you reduce psychosocial risk. Good organisational change management means clear information, transparent communication, genuine consultation, and giving workers a meaningful say before decisions are locked in. Rushing change through, keeping staff in the dark, and watering down consultation rights does the opposite. It creates uncertainty, stress and mistrust -the very things management claim to be concerned about. We also received management’s responses to some of our leave claims. On gender affirmation leave, management is proposing to expand carer’s leave so staff can support someone going through transition, which is welcome, but they have rejected our claim to improve the existing 20 days of gender affirmation leave. On reproductive health leave, management is refusing to increase the entitlement from five days, despite ten days now being the recommended national average. The good news is they have agreed to remove the requirement that staff exhaust all other leave before accessing reproductive health leave. Staff should never have been forced to exhaust other leave before accessing reproductive health leave, so removing that requirement is a necessary correction, not a generous concession. We also discussed Teaching Associate conversion. Management is proposing clearer and broader recognition of the work that counts towards conversion, including marking and other teaching-related activities. They are also proposing tighter rules around when conversion can be refused, and written reasons when an application is rejected. That clarity matters, and it should help casual academics who have been doing the work for years but have had to fight through inconsistent conversion processes. But, as usual, management has managed to attach some very big problems to the useful bits. Their proposal risks locking Teaching Associates into a separate, second-class academic role. They want to remove the possibility of a research allowance, prevent progression beyond Level B, and open Teaching Associate roles to external applicants on fixed-term contracts. In simple terms: casual staff who have been teaching at UQ for years could end up competing with outside applicants for the jobs they have already been doing. And instead of creating genuine pathways into secure, continuing academic careers, management’s proposal could create a new career dead end: rolling fixed-term contracts, limited progression, and fewer opportunities. Across the board, management’s proposals point in the same direction: more discretion for them, and less security, certainty and protection for workers. That is why we need members informed, organised and ready to push back.
|
