on 08-11-2013 11:57 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/razor-taken-to-csiro-20131107-2x4fu.html#poll
Almost a quarter of scientists, researchers and workers at Australia's premier science institution will lose their jobs under the federal government's present public service jobs freeze.
The blanket staff freeze across the public service threatens the jobs of 1400 "non-ongoing" workers at the CSIRO and could paralyse some of the organisation's premier research projects, with a ban on hiring, extending or renewing short-term contracts effective immediately.
The impact of the freeze on the CSIRO follows fears expressed in the scientific community about the Abbott government's failure to nominate a dedicated science minister out of his cabinet or ministerial team. The concerns have been heightened by subsequent decisions, including the closure of the global waming advisory body the Climate Change Commission, and revelations on Thursday that Australia will not be sending its Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, or any ministerial stand-in to international climate change negotiations starting on Monday in Warsaw.
The freeze is part of the Abbott government's plan to cut 12,000 jobs from the public service.
On Friday, the government will also announce the immediate dismantling of a raft of government advisory bodies, expert panels and national steering committees, covering diverse areas including ageing, legal affairs, ethics and animal welfare. Federal cabinet this week signed off on the changes, which will see a dozen "non-statutory" bodies axed altogether, and several more amalgamated with other bodies or absorbed into existing departmental functions.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott repeatedly promised before the election that a Coalition government would dramatically reduce the size of the bureaucracy and would do away with thousands of regulations said to be clogging the economy.
"There are currently more than 50,000 Acts and legislative instruments, many of which are a handbrake on Australia's ability to get things done," Mr Abbott said.
The bodies scrapped are: Australian Animals Welfare Advisory Committee; Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Committee; International Legal Services Advisory Committee; National Inter-country Adoption Advisory Council; National Steering Committee on Corporate Wrongdoing; Antarctic Animal Ethics Committee; Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula; High Speed Rail Advisory Group; Maritime Workforce Development Forum; Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing; Insurance Reform Advisory Group; and the National Housing Supply Council.
At the CSIRO, staff leaders fronted their bosses on Thursday, demanding answers on the fate of the workers on contracts, which can often last up to 24 months.
CSIRO has an unusually high proportion of “non-ongoings” with 990 “term” workers and about 440 casual staff among its 6500 headcount.
"It's going to be a huge problem," said one staff member, who wanted to remain anonymous.
Staff were told last week of the decision, which will hit the organisation's 11 research divisions and 11 national research flagships, as well as critical support for frontline scientists.
In an email to staff, CSIRO chief executive Megan Clarke said: "I announce an immediate recruitment freeze covering the following: External recruitment; and, entering into any new, or extending existing term or contract employment arrangements."
Catriona Jackson, the chief executive of Science and Technology Australia, the peak lobby for the nation's scientists, said she was "concerned that cuts to the public service may fall disproportionately on scientists".
West Australian federal Liberal Dennis Jensen, himself a former research scientist at CSIRO, said the suggestion that the government had an anti-science bias was incorrect.
But he admitted the failure to have a dedicated science minister worried him.
"That does concern me," he said.
"If somebody wanted to raise a concern from one of the Cooperative Research Centres, often a bridge between academia and industry, then who would they write to? Do they write to the education minister or the industry minister, I think that is the major problem, that the focus and drive of a single minister is lost."
Labor's spokesman for the environment, climate change and water, Mark Butler, said he wasn't surprised that scientists were being sacked by the government, say Mr Abbott does not respect scientists' work, particulary on climate change.
''And I don't think it's a coincidence that the experts being sacked by this government have previously pointed out the serious flaws in the Coalition's direct action con,'' Mr Butler said.
on 08-11-2013 04:13 PM
@master*and*commander wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:how do mass sackings help anybody ? will the savings benefit all australians ? obviously not.
it will redistribute the workforce and assist with filling occupations where there is currently a deficit in available skills.
The emphasis being on "benefit all Australians".
really ? the truth is that most of the older ones will never work again. the younger ones will leave for places where science still exists (other than holidays, have to visit mum)
08-11-2013 04:24 PM - edited 08-11-2013 04:27 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:
@master*and*commander wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:how do mass sackings help anybody ? will the savings benefit all australians ? obviously not.
it will redistribute the workforce and assist with filling occupations where there is currently a deficit in available skills.
The emphasis being on "benefit all Australians".
really ? the truth is that most of the older ones will never work again. the younger ones will leave for places where science still exists (other than holidays, have to visit mum)
Which explains why there is a deficit in skilled occupations in Australia... they don't get the work here so they leave to work overseas, also pay can be a lot higher overseas.
Trained here (Govt subsidised), work overseas.. that doesn't help Australia in anyway.
Mass sackings means mass people without disposable money to spend, retailers etc suffer, the economy suffers.
on 08-11-2013 04:30 PM
@master*and*commander wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:how do mass sackings help anybody ? will the savings benefit all australians ? obviously not.
it will redistribute the workforce and assist with filling occupations where there is currently a deficit in available skills.
The emphasis being on "benefit all Australians".
Can I come and live in your utopia?
The reality is that many will not be employable because of their specialised skills. Retrain? As LL said, many will be unable to be retrained. Many will leave the country so we will increase our brain drain because there will be nothing here for them.
It is purely and simply more of the same dumbing down of Australia. If we pretend science doesn't exist then we can continue to be in denial about things we don't understand. Same with asylum seekers, same with the TPP. Tell us nothing and we won't question it and just do as we're told because they know best.
Not for this little yellow duck!
on 08-11-2013 04:33 PM
@poddster wrote:A brilliant move to cull all the committees/discussion panels of the deadwood that has accumulated under the stewardship of the wasteful labor government. Most of those committees/discussion panels were just "jobs for the boys", no wonder that budget surplus was never reached, not even close in 6 years. However there was a lot of hot air generated by all those committees/discussion panels.
Even now in opposition Labor is generating hot air.
But that is to be expected
Which of those advisory bodies were just "jobs for the boys"? What were the goals and objectives of each committee/panel? Which ones do you believe to have been unnecessary or wasteful, and why?
Regardless, if their purpose has now been realised, it is time to disband them. For those whose goals have not yet been achieved, a change in management provides an opportunity to evaluate their relevance to current goals and objectives with a view to streamlining and possibly restructuring them to achieve maximum effectiveness and efficiency in the future.
on 08-11-2013 05:02 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:its merely the persuit of a narrow ideaology. a vision of no vision so to speak. the net gain is minimal compared to the social loss.
To which ideology do you refer? (not whose, the emphasis is definitely on which)
What is the net gain and what is the social loss according to your views?
What are the promulgated net gains and social loss?
What is the reality?
I daresay that the answers to these questions will reveal that your attribution of the word "narrow" would be better suited to an entirely different entity.
on 08-11-2013 05:08 PM
@am*3 wrote:Almost 300 to lose their jobs with Qantas at Geelong, already 250 lost jobs there beg. of this year.
Scientists without jobs will have to seek work overseas. A big loss for Australia.
Why can't they retrain for one of the areas where we do require the skills?
A particular qualification or record of prior employment provides neither a right or a guarantee to work in that field.
on
08-11-2013
05:14 PM
- last edited on
08-11-2013
07:26 PM
by
underbat
Some people are just running out of time for retraining and starting new careers
on 08-11-2013 05:26 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:
@master*and*commander wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:how do mass sackings help anybody ? will the savings benefit all australians ? obviously not.
it will redistribute the workforce and assist with filling occupations where there is currently a deficit in available skills.
The emphasis being on "benefit all Australians".
really ? the truth is that most of the older ones will never work again. the younger ones will leave for places where science still exists (other than holidays, have to visit mum)
So you think that unnecessary jobs should be kept open to sustain those whose skills are no longer relevant. Would you do that in your own personal business? Let me rephrase that, would an effective and efficient manager do that in any other entity where financial remuneration was applicable? If your budget was not inexhaustible, would you encourage your partner to continue employing somebody to mow the lawn after the grass had died?
If those jobs are not available in the private sector then it is an indication that the skills are redundant and surplus to our needs. Would you expect the USA to continue to fund NASA just to preserve the jobs of the astronauts?
Science is not dead in Australia, the type of science that is currently desirable and the entities which require it have simply changed.
on 08-11-2013 06:22 PM
@am*3 wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:
@master*and*commander wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:how do mass sackings help anybody ? will the savings benefit all australians ? obviously not.
it will redistribute the workforce and assist with filling occupations where there is currently a deficit in available skills.
The emphasis being on "benefit all Australians".
really ? the truth is that most of the older ones will never work again. the younger ones will leave for places where science still exists (other than holidays, have to visit mum)
Which explains why there is a deficit in skilled occupations in Australia... they don't get the work here so they leave to work overseas, also pay can be a lot higher overseas.
Trained here (Govt subsidised), work overseas.. that doesn't help Australia in anyway.
Mass sackings means mass people without disposable money to spend, retailers etc suffer, the economy suffers.
No it doesn't. That explains nothing.
How many skilled professionals trained in the fields were there are current shortages leave to work overseas because they can not get a job here? Some actual statistics would be good.
Consideration also needs to be given to those who immigrate whose training and skills development we have not had to subsidise.
Pay rates are also relative to how much demand there is for a particular skill. If the field becomes flooded, the demand and thus the pay rate will drop, just as any commodity performs in a free market. If there is a shortage, then demand and money will increase. it is all relative to what the market will bear. This is evident by the comparison of the associated pay rates and the list of skill shortages of each occupation.
Do you also ascribe to the belief that jobs should be indefinitely created/sustained to cater to those whose skills are now redundant/obsolete rather than for those whose skills suit the needs/wants of our population?
If they are unable to get a job here, could it be because they do not possess skills in the areas required?
The economy will continue to suffer if we "prop up" those who don't have the skills we need. Should we also maintain jobs for Cobblers, Abacus makers and Blacksmiths even though we don't need their services in the quantities that we once did?
We currently have a major deficit in the areas of Information Technology and various branches of Engineering to name a few (Both fields which have been advanced by science BTW), our current workforce and prospective graduates equal less than half of what we require (and the numbers are continuing to decline). 10 to 20 years ago, most of these jobs had not even been imagined. but as technology changes and evolves, so too must our accessible skills base. In effect, the science of yesterday is responsible for its own demise and needs to be replaced with those skilled in the science of today and the future. In fact, i would go as far as to say that the science of yesterday is responsible for making far more occupations obsolete than those just within the scientific spectrum.
What was that little hiccup that occurred back in the late 1700's? The Industrial Revolution, wasn't it? What was that all about again?
For what purpose was the Fisher Space Pen Invented? Do we really need the scientists involved in its creation now that its production has been industialised? Are we going to keep paying them forever, or are we going to encourage them to redevelop their skills in order to find new technologies, make new discoveries? After all, isn't that what science is ultimately about?
08-11-2013 06:31 PM - edited 08-11-2013 06:34 PM
Lets be realistic a person who has studied and is employed in engineering and related fields and gets made redundant - they are hardly like to swing to a medical profession.. completely different fields... plus the expense of more studying ( $60-$100 000 in Uni fees) and the lack of full time income while studying
After studying medicine, anaesthetists usually complete an intern year, one to two years as a general hospital resident and then at least five years of specialist training thereafter.
That is a lot of years from studying to qualifying.. hardly something an unemployed 40+yo aircraft engineer/mechanic is likely to undertake.. probably wouldn't get accepted for the course to start with.