Vic Govt Schools new SSO agreement negotiations

[SueH]

Hi All,

I see from the membership list of this site that there are about 20 Victorian Lab Techs that have joined today.
My assumption is this is in part because of what is effectively a gagging order on the LTAV list.

Firstly let me state it was not my intention to cause trouble.

Government Schools are at present in negotiatons with DEECD regarding a new Agreement. As a Branch Councillor of the CPSU I am involved in meetings with the negotiation team - there are also 2 other lab techs involved.
The CPSU wants input into what we want. The only way I can give that is to seek input from those who this has an effect on.

Please if there is anything that you think we should be asking to have included in the negotiatons let me know so I can at least raise the matter.

Let's be productive with this and we are allowed to discuss it here.

Cheers
SueH

Edited to Add: This agreement relates to ALL SSO's not just Lab Techs but LT's are my focus.

[Voice]

May I say Sue that I am glad to see so many Victorians join the site. It is a way of keeping everyone informed without prejudice.
I have been castigated for suggesting this forum but I think it is ideal.
It does not take up any email space.
It was suggested that this site is sponsored by a commercial interest. In all my time of using this site, I have never seen an advertisement for anything. I think that suggestion was made by someone in panic mode.

This is an informing site but also a fun site.

I hope all us southerners get to enjoy it as I do.

Maree Smith

[sparkle]

I would really like to see something covering use of my car for school business. Because lab techs are so minimally represented in terms of SSOs I think it will be hard to get things that are important to us but fairly specific to us.

[SueH]

Sparkle, you are right and really I guess we are looking at the situation with ALL SSO's in mind, however, there is nothing wrong with asking for something that is relevent only to Lab Techs. One of the things being sought is a minimum classification for Technology people - ie Laboratory, Library and IT.
I think you will find the use of your car for school business is covered under the DEECD or School policy rather than in the Agreement.

SueH

[Voice]

Many years ago I use to be paid car allowance for travel incurred whilst working. However, it began to be taken out of the Science budget and as such it was denied because of the cost. If we can get this paid out of the global budget it would not affect the faculty budget. This is not going to happen.
When one considers that Principals and others now have mobile phones paid for out of the global budget our personal expenses should also be.
Maybe the thought of each school having a 'school vehicle' to be access by those in need would be one way to go.
We are required to have a licence to do our job, but we are not required to have a car.

Maybe, as a group, we should begin to refuse to use our cars.

Maree

[rell]

May i first say i didnot join this site because of any gagging issue with LTAV. I joined because it was another outlet for gaining information to make life and work a little easier.
With the issue of the agreement and award every SSO has or should have access to any information regarding the log of claims whether they are a union member or not.
I know i have. I also believe that LTAV has served Vic well for a long time and different sites have different rules and conditions by which we must all agree to use their service.

[sparkle]

Apparently, the teacher agreement gives an increase of around 23-32% over 3 years when changes of levels are added. If we could follow on with something like that it would be fabulous.

[SueH]

Apparently, the teacher agreement gives an increase of around 23-32% over 3 years when changes of levels are added. If we could follow on with something like that it would be fabulous.

I have a feeling that when the real facts come out and it is sorted out what the teachers are really getting it will not be anywhere as much as this. Let's face it I'd not be committing to any large loans on the basis of the extra cash. I think the Govt. is being very cagey and playing it up so that they look good.

[barto]

Hi All,
I have just joined Chemtalk. I like Sue am a lab tech rep on the CPSU exec committee and am interested in any comments, suggestions etc for lab tech issues with regard to the agreement.
Regards
Helen

[SueH]

Welcome Helen,
glad you made it. Hopefully we can get some valuable suggestions from people here.
Sue

[Voice]

Hi Sue and Helen,
Remember me, I am the Lab. Tech. being required to complete yard duty (under the supervision of a teacher).
The new agreement needs to state specifically who can do yard duty. My boss still insists that he is right (advice from Central H.R.), whereas my advice from the department says that only SSO1-1 can do yard duty. That is because it is expected that Integration Aides will be outside with their charges during recess and lunch.
If those from central H.R. disagree, what chance have we got?
It needs to be clarified.

Maree Smith

[SueH]

Hi Maree,

Helen will correct me if i am wrong here but my understanding of the CPSU's take on yard duty is that it is a grey area. The key is in the supervision. As an SSO you are not supposed to supervise students (unless as in the case of Integration Aides) it is integral to your position.

What does under supervision mean exactly in your case? Are you walking side by side with a teacher all the time or are you at opposite ends of an area? Are you within ear shot/eye contact?

You are right though there are many things in the Agreement that are ambigious and people will read into them what they want. It seems so simple to have a set of rules and regulations in place but then we have to deal with individual interpretations.

Sue

[Voice]

I dealt with Barbara Strahan from HR central who told me that under dimensions of work, yard duty is possible for SSO1-1 but not any higher. 2 reasons. 1. Integration aides can expect to be with their charges and 2. Schools who only have a SSO1-2 in the office would lose that person to yard duty.
Now, of course, my principal has a different interpretation. Yes, supervision is walking around with a teacher. But, it is not part of my general duties.
This is an area that needs clarification so that someone like me, alone in a school, does not feel the full pressure of the system. I need clarification of my role. I do not want to be used to fill holes.

Maree

[barto]

Hi Maree,
Have you contacted the Union on this matter, assuming you are a member. I would be interested as to their interpretation as I am of the same belief of Sue. I am sure the CPSU would clarify the situation.

Helen.

[whits]

Hi Sue, I am a tertiary qualified lab tech with school and industrial experience and believe that the reclassification of technical personal to reflect their qualifications and experience is one of the most important parts in the log of claims. This would give many lab techs a substantial pay increase on it's own.

[kerryw]

Hi there, Sue and others,

I think it would be a good idea for us to know what things you are negotiating for so that we know whether or not we need to add anything. I would like recognition of my 26 years as a lab tech. I am still only an SSO 1 now, (was an SSO 2-5) I applied for a promotion to SSO 2 with these new classifications came out but I was knocked back. Surely we should be recognised for that amount of work. I would also like a minimum qualification to be introduced for Lab Technician work and a clear role description.

thanks

Kerry

[barto]

Hi Kerry,
You will have to wait for 35 years service before DEECD give you any recognition assuming it includes SSO's. My 35 years are up next year but I am not holding my breath for the recognition as I believe you get a certificate. Absolute joke how the Govt recognise their loyal!!! workers.

Helen

[Voice]

Whilst one walks around with a teacher, neither the CPSU nor AEU would protect SSO's against yard duty. Neither do the office staff SSO's. Why, because they aren't asked to do it. They are 'above' such things. There is no support for me there.
No, I am one out when arguing such matters.
That's why this duty should be clarified. HR central has differeing opinions.
Being one out, against male dominated leaders is very hard.

Maree

[SueH]

Hi there, Sue and others,

I think it would be a good idea for us to know what things you are negotiating for so that we know whether or not we need to add anything. I would like recognition of my 26 years as a lab tech. I am still only an SSO 1 now, (was an SSO 2-5) I applied for a promotion to SSO 2 with these new classifications came out but I was knocked back. Surely we should be recognised for that amount of work. I would also like a minimum qualification to be introduced for Lab Technician work and a clear role description.

thanks

Kerry

Hi Kerry,

Like you I would like to see recognition for experience however, it is not going to happen. We have been trying that one for years and years. Nearly managed it under Kennett but he was put out of Govt. before it could become a reality and the Cain/Kerner Govt. would not consider it. I am not particularly in favour of seeing a minimum qualification imposed on the job assuming you are talking about a tertiary qualification. Probably from a selfish point of view. I have no paper qualification to say I am capable of doing the job. when I started way back in the 1960's (it was the late 60's) the qualification required did not extend to a tertiary one, that only came about in the '80's or maybe even later.
However, even without that official qualification I have done a pretty good job of running labs for a lot of years. I see some of the tertiary qualified people in this job and frankly they have no idea. Granted they are probably the exception but there are still a lot of them.

IF the department was prepared to accept long term experience as a qualification then I would be happy with that.


If you were knocked back for re classification did you fight it through the Union? That is the only way I won my classification and I am now a SSO2/3. We have to be prepared to go out of our comfort zone and fight these issues and the Union is there to do it on our behalf.

The CPSU put out a list of their Log of Claims late last year. They include:
Technicians including Lab Library, AV, Computer techs be classified at no less than SSO2 SR3
Review of the Dimensions of Work
Use of a Private Vehicle
Job Security
Attendance during School Holidays and much more. If you have not seen this give the CPSU a ring and ask if they can send you one. You are supposed to be able to access this from their website but since they have updated the site it does not seem to take you to the link.


According to the Torch - the CPSU Newsletter,
Negotiations are continuing but very very slowly and some of the things already discussed are:
- Changes to salary progression - CPSU want to make progression from salary range 1 to salary range 2 easier and to recognise skills acquired through training.
- Dimensions of work - CPSU is examining interstate models, and seeks to resolve the mandatory qualification issue once and for all.
- MPB – CPSU is seeking to replace MPB as the body that considers classification grievances. CPSU believes a fairer process should be developed.
- CPSU is seeking redeployment rights for Integration Aides on one long term contract. DEECD is open to the idea, but has made no commitments to date.
- There are a number of Union claims that we are yet to discuss (WWCRC, laptop leasing, allowances, school camps)

We have to be prepared to fight for what we want and one of the biggest problems is that SSO's in general will not stand up and be counted. IF only they would support industrial action, how long do you think it would take for a school to fall into disarray if we all went on strike? I'm guessing we would make our point very quickly.

[Adam]

SueH and others,

I'm sorry but I've decided to lock this thread. Chemtalk just wasn't set up for these types of discussions.

Please PM the relevant person if you have any questions.

Thanks for your understanding.