Communications staff told to reapply for their jobs

[lurker17260]

Regardless of the politics, this is just devastating for the people involved.

More than 550 public servants at the federal Communications Department will be forced to apply for their own jobs ...... The process, aimed at cutting 125 jobs, marks the first move away from the voluntary redundancies used so far to achieve the government's cull of public service jobs ...... "Waking up and finding out that your department is cutting jobs is bad enough but then to be told you will have to fight your workmates to hang on to your job is worse."

more here

I worked in this department for a while and know a few people still there.  And a young woman in my (almost) immediate family is absolutely devastated at the idea of having to compete with her friends and colleagues for her job.

I know lots of people's jobs are under threat atm but this one has hit me hard because of my personal involvement.

[poddster]

In on employment it was every year and in another it was once in every 2 years

And when I became self employed it was weekly but I always managed to get the job i knew the owner 😉

[poddster]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

most employees are subjected to work reviews on a regular basis there is no need for anymore such time wasting procedures that only lower morale and create fear and dislike in the workplace.

---

I I have also been enployed at a couple of places where an employer could not dismiss an employee, there automatic reapplication would have solved that problem.

[lurker17260]

And these were confirmed, gazetted, permanent positions?

I'm fairly sure you're going to shout that down as "they shouldn't be", but those are the terms these people are employed under. The agreements they have made, in good faith, with their employer.

[spotweldersfriend]

"..fear and dislike".,
It's the Liberal way.

[buzzlightyearsgirlfriend]

---

@poddster wrote:

No it isn't, it should be made standard procedure. ever year or two people should be made to go through the process, and if they are doing their job well they are sure to secure it for the next cycle

---

So the workers are motivated by fear?

Fear as a motivator for staff/workers never really works well in the real world.

Smack your puppy around by motivating it with fear when you are trying to toilet train it?

You will have a dog that has no trust in humans and piddles on your carpet in fear.

Smack your workers around by motivating them with fear when are trying to get your workers to work well for you?

You will have workers who have no trust in you and hate your guts and do as little as possible for you and your business because they hate your guts for treating them poorly. 

[boris1gary]

---

@poddster wrote:

---

@boris1gary wrote:

most employees are subjected to work reviews on a regular basis there is no need for anymore such time wasting procedures that only lower morale and create fear and dislike in the workplace.

---

I I have also been enployed at a couple of places where an employer could not dismiss an employee, there automatic reapplication would have solved that problem.

---

that must have been quite a long time ago, I know of no such place now unless of course the employer is trying to dismiss an employee on spurious grounds.

[buzzlightyearsgirlfriend]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

that must have been quite a long time ago, I know of no such place now unless of course the employer is trying to dismiss an employee on spurious grounds.

---

Yes, either quite a long time ago or in an unskilled position requiring no formal qualifications.

[poddster]

in thay case Boris you have some things yet to learn

[poddster]

why do you think that there is such a large sideways mpvement in some industries?

[lurker17260]

I should add.
As Boris alluded to, these employees have already been through, at least, annual formal performance reviews. So presumably they are competent in their jobs.

I understand those unsuccessful will be given redundancies, so really what is the point? It can't be cost saving.