Leadership lessons - Shifting the boss/worker paradigm

A few weeks ago I was in the company of some former colleagues from my days as a union official. There were some people I was genuinely delighted to see. Years had passed and there were many questions about how I was now spending my time. I responded with passion and enthusiasm about the variety of things I'm working on, including leadership development for some big organisations. I was struck by the number of people who asked me outright, "Have you moved to the other side?"

The first time I was struck by the boldness of the question and could only manage a "no". After a few times, I started to react to the question with its inherent judgement and lack of curiosity. I pushed back.

"Why is leadership development perceived as being on the other side? What is the "other side" anyway?"

The answers were simplistic echoes of old class wars: you're supporting the bosses instead of the workers.

It was old-fashioned, limited thinking. I thought about the number of union members I'd talked to who had fallen victim to unskilled bosses and thought how much better it is for everyone if leaders in business are skilled in the business of leading their people. My response was met with a shrug.

People with locked in positions about workplace politics aren't limited to people working for trade unions.  In a recent conversation with senior leaders we were discussing what is within our control and considering where we focus our attention and energy. The group nodded and acknowledged the wisdom of understanding this. Then a member of the group said they hated the fact that they knew their team members would go "straight to the union" after particular conversations with them. I could see their frustration and feel the temperature in the group increase as others agreed.

I asked what bothered this leader about the actions of their people. They told me they had no control over how messages were conveyed to the union. I asked whether the team members were doing something wrong in talking to their union. The group agreed that there was nothing wrong with this. The frustration remained.


"What would happen if you acknowledged, out loud, the conversations that they would have with their union?" Uncomfortable shuffling ensued.

"What would happen if you facilitated that conversation somehow?" Angry eyes looked at me.

"After you speak to your team, how can you control who they speak to next? What they say?"

Further frustration boiled over: "We can't!" "We just have to accept it!" came the responses.

Exactly.

Imagine what might happen if the focus changed. Instead of directing energy in a negative way towards a futile goal (ie stopping people talking to each other), consider the power of accepting what is not within your control and instead directing energy in a positive way, for example facilitating or nurturing a relationship, starting a conversation.

It fascinates me that the people who are in the relationship of employer and union are often misguided about the nature of that relationship. Many probably would disagree with the concept that a relationship even exists. Even sworn enemies have a relationship with each other.

Where do you put your energy? Is it within your control? What would happen if you shifted your focus?

She's got a ticket to ride - farewell Kerry

On Friday I attended the funeral of Kerry Edsall, another woman taken too early by breast cancer. She was only 57 and leaves behind two gorgeous daughters and her husband.

I met Kerry when I was an official with the CPSU, in the early 2000's. I knew about her as the dedicated workplace delegate in the Centrelink call centre in Geelong. She quickly became a very important member of our executive and many negotiating teams. It was nice to have another woman on our side of the table.

I liked Kerry's blunt, no-nonsense and often dryly funny approach to life. I knew that I could always rely on her to tell me the truth. During negotiations we would all be away from home for days on end and she seemed to have unending stamina for socialising at the end of a hard day or putting in long hours at the end of negotiations to work out our position for the next day or find a solution to some problem.

When I called Kerry to tell her that I was moving on in 2008, she was characteristically wry: "And who said that you could do that Ms Edlington?"

The other time I found myself in trouble with Kerry was when I failed to win the million dollars on a television game show. I carried over two weeks and she told me that everyone was lined up to watch me win. I recall her saying to me, "Well that was a bit of a fizzer. I guess we're stuck with you then."

The auditorium on Friday was packed to standing room only and filled with warmth and love for a woman who gave a lot of herself to support other workers and their families. It was a fitting and proud celebration of Kerry's life. I was surprised to learn how her own family didn't really appreciate the extent of her standing within the union community. It must have been overwhelming for them.

It was bittersweet to be seeing people with whom I once worked very closely, but had not really seen in the last seven years. The human joy at continuing acquaintance and hearing about the lives of others is not suppressed even when one of your number is no longer here.

A few months ago Kerry contacted me to seek help with getting started on sock knitting. "I've been told I need to find something to do while I'm sitting on my skinny arse, so I've decided to knit socks. Where do I start?" As a devoted and prolific sock knitter myself I was able to help. I told her not to freak out when she got to the gusset and just to follow the instructions. The last time we spoke, Kerry told me she was having trouble and needed help with her gusset. I laughed. Blunt and funny until the end.

Thanks for being part of my life Kerry.

What is your superannuation paying for - a Kafkaesque tale of bureaucratic madness.

Superannuation is not at the top of my sexy topics list, but lately I've been educating myself. Maybe the advertising is sinking in and I have been researching different funds so I can streamline and consolidate. One of the things at the top of my list has been to sort out the superannuation I receive when I work as a casual employee at various universities.

What I've discovered is a bureaucratic, wasteful process - a discovery made only after I uncovered the fact that I even had an account with Uni Super.

Every time I earn more than $450 in a month, the university is obliged to pay 9.5% contribution to "my" superannuation fund. The rest of the country can choose their fund (a great initiative to allow people to consolidate their retirement savings), but the university's enterprise agreement has made the choice for everyone and sets UniSuper as the default account for all employees. That might be a fair and reasonable response, even an efficient one, for the bulk of people working in universities and serve the union agenda of supporting industry superannuation funds, but for me, a very casual casual who reaches the superannuation threshold once or twice a year, it's unfair.

My only option to address this is to fill in a paper form, that has to go in the post, requesting closure of the account and a rollover of all money in the account to another fund of my choice. Next time the employer makes a contribution, a new account will be opened for me. I will then have to fill in the same paper form, put it in the post, and request the closure of the account and rollover to my other fund.

The other thing that happens is the premium for the "optional" insurance for "death and total permanent disablement" is automatically deducted from my account. To have the premium stopped, I have to fill in a different three page paper form and put it in the post. I failed my first attempt and the form has been returned to me with the parts I handled incorrectly highlighted for me to complete and put in the post. I had to phone to find out what I should say on the form. It's full of jargon and requires knowledge about one's arrangements that I do not have, because I didn't make the arrangements.

I recently got around to filling in the form to close the account and rollover to my preferred fund but today I discovered that I have an account again - and the insurance premium is being deducted. Here is the ludicrous sequence of events:

• my account was closed on 26 February
• an employer contribution of $61.92 was made on 27 February
• contribution processed and account opened today, 4 March 2014.
• "optional" insurance is being paid for from my money.

Since 2010 when an account was first established for me a total of $727.34 has been contributed. From that, $274.20 has been paid out of my account for "optional" insurance that I don't want, didn't ask for and don't use. I pay for this insurance in another superannuation fund. Almost 40% of my meagre earnings have been given away without my permission. I'm happy to give money away, but I'd rather give it to a homeless person or a charity or an artist, not an insurance company. 

On 26 February the balance available to rollover was $284.20; a mere 39% of my money is left for me. 

I've been advised that it is not possible to have a default on any future accounts I have opened without my permission to not take out this "optional" insurance - the paper form is required every time; OR, I should be able to make the selection on the application form.

Application form? What application form? I don't believe I've ever completed an application form and will make a request to the privacy officer (by writing a letter and putting it in the post) requesting to see my records. That should be interesting.

So I went and looked at the application form. It gives me the opportunity to decide if I want to provide my tax file number, to select my beneficiaries, to NOT take up insurance and to choose my investment mix. Someone somewhere has made all these choices for me without any communication about what has happened or what it means. On reading the university's FAQ page about superannuation, I've discovered that I can also elect to reduce my employer contribution from 9.5% to 0% (and other amounts in between). Well this is good news! Surely I can just make this election and take the 9.5% out myself and pay it to my preferred fund? Well probably, but I'm sure there's some hideous tax implication that will erode my meagre earnings even further. Funny that no one has mentioned this as an option.

As it stands, whenever I am paid enough for the employer to make a superannuation contribution, an account will be opened and the insurance premiums will be calculated daily and deducted monthly from the moment the account is opened. I will only discover that superannuation has been paid when I receive a pay slip. Oh, wait, I haven't received a payslip for a few years. To get a payslip, I have to log into a system. The password expires every three months. I work there once every six months. This is not front of my mind. Anyway, by the time I discover I have a new superannuation account, money is already being deducted to pay for "optional" insurance. I will fill in TWO forms and put them in the post - one to cease the insurance and one to close the account and rollover the balance. Rinse and repeat. Indefinitely.

Is this sounding repetitive? Well it is. I wonder how happy members of the funds would be to know about this wasteful administration? I wonder how happy the insurance company (whose name I don't even know) is to receive lots of tiny amounts from unsuspecting and poorly informed superannuation members? 

On top of all of that, casual employees receive only 9.5% employer contribution, while others receive 17%! I just discovered that when I stumbled across this campaign. Despite being on the payroll (albeit as a casual) I have not had the opportunity to vote on the enterprise agreement which came into effect last year and expires in June 2017. It would seem this campaign is a little late. 

As discussed on a previous post, joining the union is not an option because I'd have to join four different ones to cover me in all my employment settings. Who can afford that? 

This is an example of casual employees not being considered in arrangements at all.  Yet we are essential to many programs in the universities. By all means, maintain the default fund arrangements for people other than casuals and provide the option for casual employees to nominate either UniSuper, or a different fund of our choosing. I'm flabbergasted that an enterprise agreement can override federal legislation about superannuation choice, given the impact it has, undermining the legislation.

I'm lodging a formal complaint, through the internal mechanism first, and will be contacting the university's superannuation officer tomorrow. I can write an email or do it over the phone, as well as write a letter and put it in the post.

Customer service doesn't seem to exist as a concept. I wonder if it will kick in as I move through the complaint process?

How informed are you about your superannuation? Do you have insurance you don't need or want? 

State of the Union - there's an elephant in the room

Tonight I attended a Fifth Estate session at Melbourne's Wheeler Centre  called "State of the Union". The panel was hosted by Sally Warhaft and included John Howe, a labour law specialist and Lisa Fitzpatrick a current official from the Victorian Branch of the  Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. (Alan Boulton from the Fair Work Commission was ill and unable to attend.)

It's a timely discussion to have, given the back drop of the Abbott Government announcing a royal commission into union corruption, the announcement of a Productivity Commission inquiry into working conditions like penalty rates and Craig Thompson's guilty verdict for misusing union members' money. The Abbott government is ideologically hostile to the idea of unions, while labelling themselves as the "best friend of workers", so bad behaviour by an individual is pounced on as justification for actions with wide ranging impact.

The conversation started with the wide question of whether there is still a  place for unions in modern Australia. The lawyer said yes on the basis that unions monitor compliance and enforce standards set in agreements and Awards. He specifically differentiated the capacity from that of government regulators by noting that unions are "on the ground" and see things that others can not.

The question to the union official was about the credibility and culture of unions. She rightly highlighted the difference between what members think about the unions they belong to and the image of unions peddled by tabloid media.

Over the course of the hour, many references were made to past successes of the union movement. The current context was framed around dwindling membership numbers of unions generally.

There's always an elephant in the room when the discussion happens: unions are still linked to single sectors or industries, a design that fundamentally ignores the changing face of where work is, how people work and what workers worry about and want.

I don't mind using myself as an example. I was a union member for over 15 years. I have spent a large portion of my working life in the union movement in voluntary, elected and employed positions. Since 2008, I have been a member of a union for about 15 months. At the time I was working in a bank part time and then full time for a few months, so I joined the Finance Sector Union. While I worked part time, I also worked for the Victorian AIDS Council. Financially, it made no sense for me to be in two unions. From a personal point of view, it made a lot of sense to be represented as a union member in both work places, but there was no way to do this.

Fast forward to now and my work situation is even more multi-faceted. Apart from being self-employed, I also work on a casual basis for a private health care organisation, several universities, professional colleges within the health sector, as well as being a freelance actor and writer working very broadly.

With the union movement still designed to align with industries, sectors or crafts, there is no relevance to the way I participate in the workforce. I'm a committed unionist and there's no space for me in the current arrangements. What about younger workers who have no experience of the good that unions can do and little connection to how they benefit from union representation at the bargaining table or in the courts enforcing their rights and conditions? Or the ambivalent worker? There is little hope of recruiting them while ever the structure is tied to old identities and has no focus on the changing needs of the workforce.

It's okay for nurses and teachers - their occupations mean they tend to work in hospitals and schools and are less dispersed across a variety of sectors. A nurse who works for two days in aged care and three days in a boarding school is still a nurse wherever s/he works, but people like me who are highly mobile and have generalist skills will be doing different things in a wide variety of places. I know that I'm not the only one.

I tried my hardest to talk about the elephant in the room when question time came. My hand was up the minute the invitation was issued, but I didn't get a look in. Four blokes in their 60's spoke about "militancy" and "the great strikes" and put positions focussed on recreating past glories, rather than asking questions. To me, this is a representation of the old ways and one of the problems with these kinds of discussions. The last question was posed by a young woman about the casualised workforce and the need for unions to appeal to these workers and I was happy the issue had been raised. 

The answers left me uninspired. The lawyer spoke about legal mechanisms to roll over to permanent employment. The union official said it was something she didn't need to consider. 

Right there is the problem - solutions reliant on things external to the unions themselves and a complete lack of imagination and strategic thinking. While ever the focus of unions is on their own survival, they are not paying attention to their potential members who are grappling with a fast changing world of work. It makes me sad because unions have an important social role to play. Ideas that people with no power or little power are able to represent themselves on an equal footing with their employer are ridiculous. 

You can listen to a podcast of tonight's discussion (and other topics) here.

What do you think about unions in the modern world? Are they relevant? What's their role? Why are you/aren't you a member? 
If you were at the Wheeler Centre, what did you think about the discussion?

I'd love to continue the conversation on this page or over on Facebook.

Union corruption inquiry - what's it really for?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of a Royal Commission to investigate corruption in the union movement is hardly surprising. He can't very well legislate to bring down unions in the way the Howard Government's Work Choices was designed to do, so instead he's done something even more potent. The frame for discussion whenever unions or union officials is mentioned is that fundamentally both are corrupt and they have to prove that they are not. This is probably politically more effective than resurrecting the "dead, buried and cremated" Work Choices legislation.

As a former union official, I know the effort, dedication, sacrifice and commitment that I brought to my work. I also saw it in those around me. I didn't see corruption and believe that I would have stood up if I had. I hope so - I was never confronted with that situation, so it's hypothetical anyway.

Today I agreed with Tony Abbott when he said: ""Honest workers and honest unionists should not be ripped off by corrupt officials and honest businesses should be able to go about their work without fear of intimidation, corruption (and) standover tactics."

Listening to union leaders and Labor parliamentarians respond to news of the Royal Commission is less than inspiring; to me, they sound defensive. The only possible answer is to say "Yes! bring on the Royal Commission. We are confident about our governance. If you do find corruption then we'll say thank you because we are not corrupt. Fundamentally, we are good people doing noble work, ensuring workers have a voice." I suppose it's hard to answer that way when you know that there's an agenda to destroy you and the organisations of which you are a custodian.

The practical problem arising from the Royal Commission is the cost of being involved. There won't be financial assistance for unions required to give evidence, surrender records and be represented. These costs will come from members' dues as members' dues are the main income for most unions. While unions are busy complying with the directions of the Royal Commission they'll be stretched thin and distracted from the business of representing members, negotiating agreements, enforcing agreements and so on. Eventually, the whole thing makes them look self-interested.

It's also interesting to hear the Government rhetoric about breaches of trust and officials inappropriately using money given to them by the people they represent. Goodness me, but that's how I describe Liberal parliamentarians going to social events like friends' weddings and claiming tax payer funds in the form of travel allowance to cover their costs. I can only hear tumbleweeds when this is mentioned. I doubt we'll ever hear Prime Minister Abbott say that honest tax payers and honest citizens should not be ripped off by corrupt parliamentarians using funds to attend social events - especially if they're on his side of the House.

The worst thing is that corruption within the union movement has the ability to cause deep harm to people who are vulnerable. When Malcolm Turnbull used the term "workers" on ABC TV's Q and A last night, it sat very uncomfortably - they are not the party of the workers.  Unions are important in a just (Capitalist) society.

If I was leader of the union movement at the moment, I'd be organising two things: firstly, a coordinated plan to share the burden of the Royal Commission and secondly, buying SPC Ardmona at Shepparton and establishing it with workers as the shareholders (ie a cooperative). The first is practical and is probably happening; the second would be both brilliant PR and have a practical effect, keeping employment and opportunity in a regional town which relies on fruit growing and canning as the mainstay of its economy. It would be pretty hard to think unions are evil when they're the only ones who've done anything to save jobs.

I have a problem with governments handing gifts of money to large, overseas owned companies (in this case Coca-Cola Amatil). I don't think it should happen. However, if there's a flood of people onto the dole queue, then the $25 million sought by Coke will soon be overshadowed by the welfare bill, social costs and flow-on effects to other businesses in the region.

I'm not leader of the union movement, so I'll have to wait and see along with the rest of you. I'd be surprised if these these ideas are not being considered. In the meantime, I have changed the way I describe my past experience. I will now be describing myself as a "community campaign leader" as I see no benefit in carrying around the smelly baggage I've been lumped with as a former union official.

What's needed? Code of conduct or brave leadership?

I am closely following the story unfolding around the former Health Services Union official and now Member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, and the governance of that union.  (You can read the latest news story here and the full 1127 page Fair Work Australia report into the HSU East Branch is available here.)  At times I am angry about what's happening and at other times, I am just plain sad.  Tonight I'm banging my head against the wall wondering when it will all stop.

As a former union official (working for members of a different union, not the HSU), I know what a privilege it is to have the people you worked with elect you to represent their industrial interests.  I felt the weight of this responsibility heavily and tried to exercise my advocacy consciously for their benefit.  I resent the fact that when I reveal my past to people they get a look in their eye and then want to know how I used my union credit card.  By sharing a job title on a CV, hard working and sincere men and women are looked upon as corrupt - or at least corruptible - by others.

I had a credit card and so did members of my team.  It was very clear to me and to my team how we were to use this credit card.  Rules for usage and accounting were in place and there was no tolerance for anyone who went outside these boundaries.

Discussions about what the findings of the Fair Work Australia report mean for a sitting member of Parliament in recent days has been focussed around developing a code of conduct for parliamentarians and establishing rules spelling out powers Parliament can exercise in relation to someone in Craig Thomson's situation.  It amazes me that in most situations where it is suggested that people with stewardship of an organisation may have failed to act in accordance with community standards, rewriting of the policy handbook is one of the first responses.

I have not yet read all 1127 pages of the Fair Work Australia report.  I have followed the story closely in the media and also talk with friends who still work in the union movement.  Whether Craig Thomson himself is ultimately found to be guilty of fraud or negligence, it seems likely that a culture had developed within the union which allowed loose governance to become the norm.  How is a code of conduct going to help in a situation like this?  If people think it's okay to use the union (or company credit card) to procure prostitutes and all the checks and balances within the organisation fail to correct this, writing another policy is not going to protect the members of the union or shareholders of the company.

As a member of any organisation, I have a reasonable expectation when I join that the governance structures and processes will be facilitated honestly and conscientiously by the people who happen to be the custodians at the time.  If I was worried about something before I signed up, I wouldn't sign up until my worry was demonstrably resolved.  If I joined and then had concerns I would ask questions inside the organisation.    But what happens when you're a relatively low paid health services worker who feels powerless at work and joined the union because you saw it as a way to secure a better deal at work?  The last place you'd be thinking of fighting is your own union.  You'd probably have enough on your plate at work and at home.  Imagine then that you'd become active in your union and volunteered some of your own time to help organise your workplace.  You had a sense of pride and achievement as you grew membership in your workplace and helped resolve issues.  Perhaps this had even extended to supporting an official or a staffer in their quest to further represent workers by standing for election as a member of the political arm of organised labour, the Australian Labor Party.

Imagine then, how you must feel each day as you go to work, each week as you pay your union dues and consider whether it's worth it.  How would you be able to wear your union's t-shirt, jacket or badge again with anything other than shame?    This is what makes me so angry.  The trust and comradeship of ordinary workers has been violated.  That's just not fair.

A few weeks ago, I saw three member organisers of the HSU interviewed on television.  Their hearts were breaking as they talked about their betrayal.  My heart broke as I listened to them until their final words made me cheer: "It's our union.  We are the members of the union and the union belongs to us.  We want it back!"

The rallying cry of these three women is what it's all about.  It's not about people exploiting power which has been entrusted to them and it's not about writing a policy or a code of conduct.  Anyone who thinks it's okay to use the union credit card for any personal expenditure (whether it's buying prostitutes or buying bread and milk) because there isn't a written rule that says it's not allowed, is not fit for office in any organisation.  Any organisation that discovers such a person in their midst should not hesitate to remove them.

Decisive leadership which supports the values of the organisation they lead is the only answer.

What do you think?

Darwin daze

Five years since I was last in Darwin I feel the hot air curtain as I step off the aircraft.  It's a welcome contrast to the 9 degrees Celsius I left behind in Melbourne.  I was in town for a day's work but went up for the weekend before so I could acclimatise and enjoy a tropical mini break.

I was met at the airport gate by a former colleague, which was impressive because the flight has arrived twenty minutes early.  She had seen some backpackers walking (a substantial distance) to the airport and picked them up.  They were French and they were chefs and they were out of money and on their way to Bali.  So there she was.  I was the only one whose "people" were there to meet me.  I felt happy.

As we drove to her place, I was dazzled by the lush green jungle that lazed casually by the roadside.  I remembered how much I'd loved the place.  The halo of frizz was already taking hold of my lustrous locks and I remembered how much I hated the place.

I had come to Darwin on Territory Day in 2007 to lead the "Your Rights at Work" campaign for the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union).  My focus was the Darwin centred seat of Solomon which was held by the Country Liberal Party (CLP) on a wafer thin margin.  The seat was seen as essential to Labor's federal electoral success.

Six months later my work was done, the Labor candidate victorious, and I returned to Melbourne happy to escape the build up to the wet season.  I'd worked hard, but somehow the tropical lifestyle gave life an air of permanent holidays.  I'd made friends and embraced life.

My host had invited me to the trades and labour council's (Unions NT) annual May Day dinner on Saturday night.  I accepted with some dread initially.  The world of organised labour seemed a long way away and I wasn't sure I really wanted to go; but I was staying at her house and good grace dictated that I had to accept.

My dinner ticket with the slogan "Secure Jobs, better future.  Every Territorian deserves a secure job"
(c) divacultura 2012

In the end I was really pleased I did go.  I reconnected with people I had campaigned with five years ago and I met the next generation of young organisers and delegates who don't even know my name.  It was great to see this.  It's an election year in the Territory and time already spent in government is going to make it difficult for Labor to return to power. The dinner speeches were heavy on politics and it was great to reach the awards part of the evening.

My favourite awards are about workplace delegates who volunteer their time and often stick their neck out to support their colleagues.  It's where I started and I know how hard it can be.  A long standing delegate from one of the blue collar unions was recognised with a lifetime achievement award.  The story of his contribution was told by a fellow delegate with good humour and respect.  He was described as turning up to meetings with his legendary bag.  That bag carried every document relevant to every determination, decision and agreement covering workers in his workplace.  He knew the history of every issue and why certain agreements had been struck.  He knew the purpose and intention sitting behind every line in every document and could produce these documents at a moment's notice - complete with notations and coffee stains.

The room erupted into applause as a man with long grey hair and beard, wearing black pants and a black shirt took the podium and accepted his award.  He made his way to the microphone to make his acceptance speech and couldn't speak.  He was overwhelmed at the recognition and managed to just say "thank you" as his emotion spilled over.  These two words carried so much meaning in their humility.  It was a wonderful end to the formal part of the evening.

The dinner was held at Sky City Casino.  The view at dusk from the picture windows was wonderful.

Darwin city skyline at dusk - from Sky City Casino, third floor.
(c) divacultura 2012

The room looked wonderful too, with union banners on display all around the room.  Here's the old PSU Northern Territory Branch banner:

The traditional PSU banner depicting the various occupations of members.
(c) divacultura 2012

I didn't make it to the May Day march on Monday afternoon.  I was resting in my air conditioned hotel room.  The sound of bagpipes pierced my cyclone proof windows (what would a march be without the bagpipes?) and I went down to the esplanade to enjoy an evening walk and take in the festivities.  There was an air of celebration and family.  A combined union band was playing funk and blues and they were fantastic.  So was the sound.

It's interesting to revisit not only a place, but a time of one's life.  Some former colleagues recoiled when I told them that I am now a business owner and it's my company's first birthday this week. As though my values that I slaved in support of had been surgically removed and I was now a member of a different class, an enemy class.  That was disappointing and I wanted to scream at them.  Instead, I took my complimentary $5 chip and made quite a bit on the money wheel.