SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BUDGET IMPACT SURVEY PART 2 - STAFF IMPACT

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BUDGET IMPACT SURVEY

Report 2: Staff impact Ann-Louise Hordacre John Spoehr

May 2011 Report prepared for:

Public Service Association of South Australia

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

1

Australian Institute for Social Research The University of Adelaide 230 North Terrace Adelaide South Australia 5005 www.aisr.adelaide.edu.au Published May 2011.

ISBN:

978-0-9871430-0-6

Suggested citation: Hordacre, AL & Spoehr, J. (2011). South Australian Budget Impact Survey – Report 2: Staff Impact. Adelaide: Australian Institute for Social Research, The University of Adelaide.

CONTENTS KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 2

2

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 2

3

SURVEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................. 2

4

3.1

BUDGET IMPACT ON CAREER INTENTIONS .................................................................................................................... 2

3.2

LEVEL OF STAFF CUTBACKS........................................................................................................................................ 5

3.3

FEELINGS ABOUT WORK AND WORKLOAD .................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.1

Impact of staff cutbacks on the work and work unit .................................................................................. 10

3.3.2

Impact of staff cutbacks on staff ................................................................................................................ 12

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................................16 4.1

WORKPLACE........................................................................................................................................................ 16

APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE .......................................................................................................................18 APPENDIX B: PORTFOLIOS AND TYPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................19

TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: IMPACT OF 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ON PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES CAREER INTENTIONS FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS ......................... 3 FIGURE 2: IMPACT OF 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ON PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES CAREER INTENTIONS FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS BY AGE ............... 3 FIGURE 3: MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR FOR CHANGING CAREER INTENTIONS AFTER THE 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ................................... 4 FIGURE 4: STAFFING LEVELS FOR RESPONDENT’S UNIT AND AGENCY PRIOR TO 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ................................................... 5 FIGURE 5: REALLOCATION OF DUTIES IN WORK UNITS EXPERIENCING CUTBACKS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS ................................................. 6 FIGURE 6: MAIN REASON FOR STAFF CUTBACKS IN THE WORK UNIT .................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 7: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUTBACKS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS AND CHANGING CAREER INTENTIONS........................................... 7 FIGURE 8: STAFFING LEVELS FOR RESPONDENT’S UNIT AND AGENCY PRIOR TO 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ................................................... 7 FIGURE 9: RATINGS ABOUT CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD ........................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 10: SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD .................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 11: STRESSED WITH CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 12: FEEL OVERWORKED BY CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD ................................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 13: ABLE TO GET THROUGH CURRENT WORKLOAD IN REGULAR HOURS ..................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 14: QUALITY OF WORK ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY CURRENT WORKLOAD .................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 15: CURRENT JOB ALLOWS ME TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ......................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 16: CURRENT WORK HAS ADVERSE EFFECT ON HEALTH AND WELLBEING ................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 17: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON WORK AND THE WORK UNIT IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 18: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON EFFICIENCY IN THE WORK UNIT IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 FIGURE 19: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON THE ABILITY OF THE WORK UNIT TO COVER REGULAR AND UNPLANNED JOB ABSENCES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE.................................................................................. 11

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

i

FIGURE 20: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY ABILITY TO DO MY JOB IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 21: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY WORKLOAD IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 22: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON THE QUALITY OF MY WORK IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 23: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON STAFF IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ..... 13 FIGURE 24: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY ABILITY TO MAKE LONG TERM PLANS ABOUT MY WORK IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ...................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 25: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON THE PRESSURE I EXPERIENCE AT WORK IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 26: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY STRESS LEVELS IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 FIGURE 27: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY MORALE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 28: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY JOB SATISFACTION IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 FIGURE 29: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY CONFIDENCE IN THE SA GOVERNMENT AS AN EMPLOYER IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ....................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 30: GOVERNMENT AGENCY OF USUAL WORK ................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 31: AVERAGE HOURS OF PAID AND UNPAID OVERTIME BY THE AVERAGE HOURS RESPONDENT IS EMPLOYED TO WORK ..................... 17

FIGURE A 1: GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS COMPARED TO ELIGIBLE PSA MEMBERS AND THE TOTAL SA PUBLIC SECTOR .. 18 FIGURE A 2: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS COMPARED TO ELIGIBLE PSA MEMBERS AND THE TOTAL SA PUBLIC SECTOR .................. 18 FIGURE A 3: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: JUSTICE PORTFOLIO .............................................................................................................. 19 FIGURE A 4: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: TRANSPORT, ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE PORTFOLIO ................................................................ 19 FIGURE A 5: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: FAMILIES & COMMUNITIES PORTFOLIO .................................................................................... 19 FIGURE A 6: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO ....................................................................... 20 FIGURE A 7: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: ENVIRONMENT PORTFOLIO .................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE A 8: DESCRIPTION OF THE USUAL NATURE OF RESPONDENTS WORK AND THE WORK USUALLY UNDERTAKEN BY THEIR WORK UNIT ...... 21

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

ii

KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE It isFINDINGS apparent from results of this survey that the compounding effects of successive State Budget cuts KEY ATthe A GLANCE is fuelling the loss of experienced staff at a faster rate than less experienced staff. This accelerates a preexisting trend fuelled by the ageing of the workforce and the acceleration of the retirement rate of the baby boomer population. The combination of these influences has the potential to starve the public sector of the expertise and skills it needs to meet government and community expectations. 

 

 

  



More than half the respondents indicated the 2010-2011 State Budget affected their career intentions o Most of these were considering leaving the public sector via separation packages (17%), or resignation to seek work elsewhere (14%). o A further 10% were considering job change within the sector. o Public servants with more experience reported that they were most likely to leave either their jobs or the sector (in addition to those already contemplating retirement in the next five years) Staff cuts were the main contributing factor to changes in career intentions for almost one third of respondents.

One-half of respondents indicated their work unit had experienced staff cutbacks in the preceding 12 months, with one-third of these being considered ‘significant cutbacks’ (around one-third reduction in staff). o Staff cutbacks were significantly related to changes in career intention. Almost 60% of those experiencing significant cutbacks were considering leaving the public sector or their current role, compared with one-third of those who reported no cutbacks.

Almost half the respondents in inadequately staffed work units (or agencies) were considering leaving their current job or the public sector, compared with less than 40% in adequately staffed areas.

Only a quarter of respondents indicated they were almost always satisfied with their current work and workload. These individuals were less likely to consider job change or departure from the public sector suggesting that job satisfaction plays a protective role from other work pressures. Noting that almost three-quarters of respondents did not get the benefit from this high level of job satisfaction.

28% of respondents reported they were never or rarely able to get through their workload in regular hours.

Many felt their current work and workload had at least some impact on their stress levels, feelings of being overworked and their health and wellbeing.

Staff cutbacks experienced as a result of the 2009-10 State Budget were viewed as having an overwhelmingly negative impact on the work and work unit, with further deleterious impact as a result of the 2010-11 Budget. o In some cases, respondents indicated additional personal effort meant they could deliver on the work they were responsible for, but were aware that this was not possible within the broader work unit.

In terms of personal impact, it is evident that respondents believe that the State Budgets brought down for 2009-10 and 2010-11 had negative implications. o As a result of the 2009-10 Budget, 44.8% of respondents indicated confidence in their employer was very negatively impacted, this was compounded by the 2010-11 Budget with 55.5% of respondents indicating very negative impact. o As a result of the 2010-11 State Budget, one third of respondents reported a very negative impact on their morale, while one quarter of respondents indicated very negative impacts on their stress levels and the pressure they experienced at work.

Respondents were a representative cross-section of PSA members, with 3,380 members taking part. They were currently working an average of 2.7 hours overtime per week, with 85% of all overtime being unpaid.

More than half the respondents reported that their work unit and/or their agency were inadequately staffed prior to the announcements in the 2010-11 State Budget.

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

1

1

INTRODUCTION

The South Australian Budget Impact Survey was developed collaboratively with the Public Service Association (PSA) of South Australia. It consisted of a number of multiple and free response questions exploring the perceived impact of the South Australian Budget for 2010-11 on the delivery of State Government services to the community, and the impact on the work quality, workload and work satisfaction of employees.

This report focuses on the perspectives of PSA members on the impact of the State Budget on staff. A previously released companion report considers the effects of the State Budget on the delivery of Government Services.

2

METHODOLOGY

The survey was tested with a working group of PSA members to ensure questions and response options were appropriate, and the online survey was free of technical problems. Minor revisions were made to the survey as a result of feedback from this process. On 1 December 2010, approximately 13,000 PSA members from South Australian Government funded agencies received an invitation to participate in the survey, with a web-link to the Survey Monkey site. Two emails were subsequently sent, thanking those who had already participated and reminding those yet to complete the survey. The survey closed on 22 December 2010.

3

SURVEY FINDINGS

Respondents were a representative cross-section of PSA members, with 3,380 members taking part. They were currently working an average of 2.7 hours overtime per week, with 85% of all overtime being unpaid. More than half the respondents reported that their work unit and/or their agency were inadequately staffed prior to the announcements in the 2010-11 State Budget. More details about the respondents personal and workplace characteristics are presented in Section 4 and the Appendices.

3.1

BUDGET IMPACT ON CAREER INTENTIONS

It is apparent from the results of this survey that the compounding effects of successive State Budget cuts is fuelling the loss of experienced staff at a faster rate than less experienced staff. This accelerates a pre-existing trend fuelled by the ageing of the workforce and the acceleration of the retirement rate of the baby boomer population. The combination of these influences has the potential to starve the public sector of the expertise and skills it needs to meet government and community expectations.

More than half the respondents indicated their career intentions had been affected by the 2010-2011 State Budget. Almost 17% of survey participants reported they would now consider a separation package, if it was available (see Figure 1). A further 14.3% were more likely, as a result of the Budget, to resign from their position in the public service and seek opportunities outside State Government. Just over 10% considered moving from their current job, into another position in State Government, and 4.1% indicated they were more likely to seek earlier retirement.

Whilst age and length of workforce tenure are significantly correlated, this relationship does not tell the whole story. There was no significant age difference between those who were considering either changing their role or leaving the public service altogether. However, there was a significant difference in terms of experience –

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

2

those who had been in the public service for longer were more likely to consider leaving their job or leaving the sector.

Figure 1: Impact of 2010-11 State Budget on public service employees career intentions for next five years

Career for next 5 years 27.7%

30%

20%

16.8% 14.3% 10.1%

10%

8.9%

7.6%

6.7% 4.1%

3.8%

% Would consider a separation package

More likely to More likely to Likely to work More likely to resign from leave job & longer retire earlier job & seek seek other opportunities opportunities outside SA within SA Gov Gov

Other

Was already No intention Don't know planning to to retire/resign resign/retire in within 5 yrs next 5 years

In terms of the older cohort of State Public Sector employees (ie those aged over 45 years), it is apparent that many were already considering retirement (see Figure 2). The prospect of a separation package is likely to have prompted a number into earlier retirement. Around 40% of the younger cohort (under 45 years) were considering their options for job change, both within the public sector (18.2%) and through resignation from the sector (23.1%).

Figure 2: Impact of 2010-11 State Budget on public service employees career intentions for next five years by age 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

More likely More likely Was No to resign to leave job Would already intention to More likely from job & & seek Likely to consider a planning to resign/ seek other to retire work longer retire/ retire in separation opportuniti opportuniti earlier package resign next 5 es outside es within within 5 yrs years SA Gov SA Gov

Other

60 years and over

16.9%

2.0%

2.0%

10.6%

24.0%

55.8%

2.7%

8.0%

55 to 59 years

31.9%

11.1%

9.6%

23.1%

39.6%

28.9%

16.1%

10.0%

50 to 54 years

23.7%

22.0%

17.9%

35.0%

29.2%

12.1%

22.2%

13.0%

45 to 49 years

12.9%

17.7%

18.7%

15.6%

6.3%

2.1%

18.2%

28.0%

Less than 45 years

14.8%

47.1%

51.8%

15.6%

1.0%

1.1%

40.9%

41.0%

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

3

Staff cuts were the main contributing factor to changes in career intentions for almost one third of respondents (see Figure 3). This was particularly salient for those who were considering changing jobs within State Government. Not surprisingly, reduced entitlements were less of an issue for this group, but they were particularly important for those considering resignation from the State public service, and seeking employment opportunities elsewhere, with 45.4% citing this as their primary motivation.

Figure 3: Main contributing factor for changing career intentions after the 2010-11 State Budget

Contributing factors 100% 80%

16.4%

13.8%

11.1%

11.5%

41.3%

45.4%

15.6% 21.5%

60% 27.0%

17.4% 8.3%

40.4% Other

40%

Reduced options for other work 20%

31.1%

29.2%

35.9%

33.9%

Reduced entitlements Staff cuts

0% Would consider a More likely to separation resign from job & package seek opportunities outside SA Gov

More likely to leave job & seek other opportunities within SA Gov

More likely to retire earlier

Other reasons provided for considering a separation package were dissatisfaction with management, inability to provide adequate services to the community and clients, and lack of respect. The potential availability of a separation package was also cited as an incentive. Public sector staff who were considering leaving the State Government for other employment opportunities indicated that there were multiple factors influencing them including lack of confidence in the government, and feeling that both they and the work they did was undervalued. Reasons for remaining in State Government but leaving their current position tended to focus on the culture, work load and expectations of their current role or work unit.

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

4

3.2

LEVEL OF STAFF CUTBACKS

More than half the respondents reported that their work unit (57.2%) and/or their agency (56.6%) were inadequately staffed prior to the announcements in the 2010-11 State Budget (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Staffing levels for respondent’s unit and agency prior to 2010-11 State Budget

Staffing levels Your unit 57.2%

60% 40% 20%

Your agency

56.6%

28.8% 17.6%

14.2% 1.2% 1.9%

3.1%

Overstaffed

Don't know

9.7% 9.7%

% Yes, adequately No, staffed inadequately staffed

No response

One-half of respondents (51.6%, n= 1744) indicated their work unit had experienced staff cutbacks in the preceding 12 months, with one-third of these being considered ‘significant cutbacks’. Those reporting ‘significant’ cutbacks indicated that an average of one third of staff in their work unit had been cut in the past 12 months. Respondents reported ‘moderate’ cutbacks when their work unit experienced a 22% reduction in staff, and ‘minor’ cutbacks when 17% of their staff were cut.

Figure 5 shows that in more than 80% of cases duties were reallocated amongst existing staff after cutbacks from work units. This was slightly less common when cutbacks were considered ‘significant’, and if this was the case, duties tended to be abolished all together. Of those who reported cutbacks in the previous 12 months, three-quarters believed that these cutbacks were directly attributable to the Budget (see Figure 6).

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

5

Figure 5: Reallocation of duties in work units experiencing cutbacks in previous 12 months

Reallocation of duties (n=1740) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Yes - significant cutbacks (n=500)

Yes - moderate cutbacks (n=611)

Yes - minor cutbacks (n=633)

Other (n=94)

7.4%

5.6%

3.7%

Don't know (n=100)

3.2%

6.1%

7.5%

The duties were reallocated amongst existing staff (n=1458)

80.0%

84.9%

85.7%

The duties were abolished altogether (n=88)

9.4%

3.4%

3.2%

Note, 4 respondents provided no response regarding the allocation of duties, these are not included in the figure.

Figure 6: Main reason for staff cutbacks in the work unit

Reduced number of staff required to do the work, 14.7%

Reason for cutbacks (n-1,744) No response, 0.3%

Efficiency dividend, 3.7% Skill shortage, 2.6%

Budgetrelated, 78.6%

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

6

There was a significant relationship between experience of cutbacks in the previous 12 months and whether the respondent was considering role change within the sector or leaving the public sector altogether (see Figure 7). Respondents who reported cutbacks in the preceding 12 months were more likely to be considering these types of changes. This ranged from 57.9% of respondents whose work unit had experienced significant cuts, through to 47.5% of those experiencing minor cutbacks. In contrast just over one-third of those not experiencing cutbacks in the previous 12 months were considering leaving their role or the sector. This has serious implications for the additional cuts proposed in the 2010-11 State Budget.

Figure 7: Relationship between cutbacks in previous 12 months and changing career intentions

Leaving role or sector 100% 80%

42.1%

47.7%

52.5%

64.8%

60% No

40%

Yes

57.9%

52.3%

20%

47.5%

35.2%

0% Yes - significant cutbacks

Yes - moderate cutbacks

Yes - minor cutbacks

No cutbacks

Administrative work was common for respondents, and also the most common activity for the work areas of respondents. One-third of respondents (33.5%) reported usually being engaged in administrative work, while almost one-quarter worked in units predominantly engaged with administration (see Figure A 8).

More than half the respondents reported that their work unit (57.2%) and/or their agency (56.6%) were inadequately staffed prior to the 2010-11 State Budget. This factor significantly impacted decisions about leaving current work roles or leaving the public sector altogether, with 38.8% of respondents in adequately staffed work units considering leaving compared with 48.5% of those in inadequately staffed work units.

Inadequately staffed agencies produced similar results (48.1% considering leaving) compare to adequately staffed agencies where only 36.9% were considering this option.

Figure 8: Staffing levels for respondent’s unit and agency prior to 2010-11 State Budget

Staffing levels Your unit 57.2%

60% 40% 20%

Your agency

56.6%

28.8% 17.6%

14.2% 1.2% 1.9%

3.1%

Overstaffed

Don't know

9.7% 9.7%

% Yes, adequately No, staffed inadequately staffed

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

No response

7

3.3

FEELINGS ABOUT WORK AND WORKLOAD

All respondents were asked to rate their feelings about their current work and workload. Responses are rated on a scale of 1 ‘Never’ through to 5 ‘Almost always’. On a positive note, more than half the respondents (57.9%) indicated they were often or almost always satisfied with their jobs resulting in the best rating (3.7) for this scale (see Figure 9), with only 10% reporting they were never or rarely satisfied (see Figure 10).

Respondents with high levels of job satisfaction were significantly less likely to consider job change or departure from the public sector indicating that job satisfaction protects individuals from other external work pressures.

Many respondents (45.5%) also believed their job allowed them to make a difference, with less than 20% believing this was never or rarely the case (see Figure 15). Fewer respondents strongly endorsed the statement indicating they were able to get through their current workload in regular hours (40.3%), with 27.7% of respondents rarely or never able to achieve this outcome (see Figure 13). This was not always seen to impact on the quality of work (see Figure 14). Although not always the case, the fact that the respondents’ current work and workload had at least some impact on their stress levels, feelings of being overworked and their health and wellbeing, should not be overlooked.

Figure 9: Ratings about current work and workload

Curent work and workload Almost always

5 4

3.73 3.37

3.31

3.38

3.22

2.90

2.86

3 2 Never

1 Satisfaction Workload Workload Ability to get Quality of my My job allows Work has an with job makes me feel makes me feel through work is me to make a adverse effect stressed overworked workload in adversely difference on my health normal affected working hours because of my workload

Figure 10: Satisfaction with current work and workload

Satisfied

50%

Stress

45.7%

50%

40%

32.0%

31.7%

30%

40% 26.2%

20% 10%

Figure 11: Stressed with current work and workload

26.1%

30% 20%

8.4%

10%

1.6%

%

13.5%

13.0% 1.7%

% Never

Rarely

Sometimes

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Often

Almost always

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

8

Figure 12: Feel overworked by current work and workload

Feel overworked

50%

40% 25.2%

30% 16.3%

20%

32.0%

30% 13.4%

15.8%

6.8%

10%

2.4%

24.5%

20.9%

20%

%

% Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Figure 14: Quality of work adversely affected by current workload

Never

50%

15.6% 6.8%

Almost always

29.3%

30%

20%

Often

35.2%

40%

28.9%

30%

Sometimes

Make a difference

50%

42.4%

40%

Rarely

Figure 15: Current job allows me to make a difference

Quality of work affected

10%

Get through workload

50%

42.7%

40%

10%

Figure 13: Able to get through current workload in regular hours

6.4%

4.6%

10%

%

16.2%

14.7%

20%

% Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Figure 16: Current work has adverse effect on health and wellbeing

Health & wellbeing affected 50%

43.1%

40% 25.8%

30% 20% 10%

16.0% 7.5%

7.5%

% Never

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

9

3.3.1 IMPACT OF STAFF CUTBACKS ON THE WORK AND WORK UNIT Respondents who indicated their work unit had experienced staff cutbacks as a result of the 2009-10 State Budget described the impact of these cutbacks on their work and their work unit over the last 12 months. This is compared with the expected impact of the 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks, with responses rated on a scale of 1 ‘Very negative impact’ through to 5 ‘Very positive impact’.

As evident in Figure 17, the cutbacks experienced as a result of the 2009-10 State Budget were viewed as having an overwhelmingly negative impact.. The negative implications were most evident in the impact on the ability of the work unit to cover regular and unplanned job absences and on the efficiency in the work unit as a whole (see Figure 18 and Figure 19). Where the respondent had the ability to display some personal control, the results were slightly more positive. This suggests that while individuals are experiencing Budget cutbacks negatively, they are putting in additional personal effort to ensure they are able to deliver on the work they are responsible for. However, they recognise the inability of the work unit, more broadly, to respond to repeated cutbacks.

Figure 17: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on work and the work unit in the last 12 months and in the future

Work impact Impact last 12 months

Future impact

5 4 3

2.24

2.05

2

2.47 2.00

1.90

2.28

2.30

2.59 2.14

2.37

1 Efficiency in the work unit

Ability of the work The ability to do my unit to cover regular job and unplanned job absences

My workload

The quality of my work

Figure 18: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on efficiency in the work unit in the last 12 months and in the future

Efficiency in work unit Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 49.5% 49.7%

60% 40% 20%

11.9%

23.4%

23.1% 20.5% 2.4%

2.6%

0.6%

1.0%

12.4%

2.8%

0% Very negative

Negative

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

10

Figure 19: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on the ability of the work unit to cover regular and unplanned job absences in the last 12 months and in the future

Cover job absences Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 49.1% 45.5%

60% 40%

21.9%

32.4% 13.7% 16.6%

20%

2.3%

1.7%

0.7%

1.0%

12.2%

2.7%

0% Very negative

Negative

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

Figure 20: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my ability to do my job in the last 12 months and in the future

Ability to do job Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60%

39.8% 41.5%

40% 20%

6.5%

37.6% 36.1%

16.2% 2.5%

2.3%

0.8%

0.9%

12.9%

3.0%

0% Very negative

Negative

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

Figure 21: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my workload in the last 12 months and in the future

Workload Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60%

45.4% 45.5%

40% 20%

11.5%

26.2% 28.4%

20.5%

2.6%

2.0%

13.5% 0.7%

0.7%

2.9%

0% Very negative

Negative

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

11

Figure 22: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on the quality of my work in the last 12 months and in the future

Quality of work Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60%

34.0% 35.9%

40% 20%

4.4%

44.9% 43.2%

14.5%

2.6%

2.4%

1.0%

0.9%

13.1%

3.2%

0% Very negative

Negative

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

3.3.2 IMPACT OF STAFF CUTBACKS ON STAFF This section explores the results of staff cutbacks from the last two State Budgets on the personal experience of respondents in terms of morale, satisfaction and confidence. Responses are rated on a scale of 1 ‘Very negative impact’ through to 5 ‘Very positive impact’.

In terms of personal impact, it is evident that respondents believe that the State Budgets brought down for 2009-10 and 2010-11 had negative implications (see Figure 23). In fact less than 4% of respondents indicated that any of these items had positive impact. At the most extreme end of the scale respondents’ confidence in the SA government as an employer was very low. As a result of the 2009-10 Budget, 44.8% of respondents indicated confidence in their employer was very negatively impacted, this was then compounded by the 201011 Budget with 55.5% of respondents indicating very negative impact at this time (see Figure 29).

As a result of the 2010-11 State Budget, one third of respondents reported a very negative impact on their morale (see Figure 27), while one quarter of respondents indicated very negative impacts on their stress levels (see Figure 26) and the pressure they experienced at work (see Figure 25).

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

12

Figure 23: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on staff in the last 12 months and in the future

Personal impact Impact last 12 months

Future impact

5 4 3 2.18

2.16

2.02

2.05

2.14

2.04

2.01

2

2.17

1.92

2.04

1.71

1.60

1 My ability to The pressure I make long term experience at plans about my work work

Stress levels

My morale

Job satisfaction My confidence in the SA government as an employer

Figure 24: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my ability to make long term plans about my work in the last 12 months and in the future

Long term work plans Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60% 40%

19.6%

29.4%

36.1% 39.6%

28.2% 25.1%

20%

1.7%

1.8%

13.7% 0.7%

0.8%

3.2%

0% Very negative

Negative

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

Figure 25: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on the pressure I experience at work in the last 12 months and in the future

Pressure experienced Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 48.3% 48.1%

60% 40% 20%

14.9%

23.6%

21.9% 23.3% 1.4%

1.6%

0.7%

0.7%

12.8%

2.7%

0% Very negative

Negative

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

13

Figure 26: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my stress levels in the last 12 months and in the future

Stress levels Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

45.5% 46.0% 17.0%

25.6%

22.6% 23.4% 1.6%

1.6%

0.6%

0.8%

12.6%

2.5%

0% Very negative

Negative

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

Figure 27: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my morale in the last 12 months and in the future

Morale Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60% 40%

26.1%

33.1%

40.3% 43.5% 17.8% 18.2%

20%

2.4%

2.0%

0.9%

1.0%

12.5%

2.3%

0% Very negative

Negative

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

Figure 28: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my job satisfaction in the last 12 months and in the future

Job satisfaction Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60% 40%

19.8%

28.2%

39.2% 41.4% 24.3% 24.7%

20%

3.2%

2.2%

0.8%

1.1%

12.7%

2.4%

0% Very negative

Negative

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

14

Figure 29: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my confidence in the SA government as an employer in the last 12 months and in the future

Confidence in SA government as employer Impact last 12 months

Future impact

100% 80% 60%

44.8%

55.5% 28.6% 30.5%

40%

11.5% 9.3%

20%

1.3%

1.2%

1.3%

1.5%

12.4%

2.0%

0% Very negative

Negative

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Neither positive nor negative

Positive

Very positive

Not applicable

15

4

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 1

In total, 3,380 members of the PSA of South Australia took part in the survey, representing approximately 26% of those invited. The gender distribution of survey respondents, eligible PSA members and the entire public sector is similar, with approximately one-third males and two-thirds females (see Appendix A).

The average age for survey respondents was 48.1 years, very similar to the average age of eligible PSA members (47.8 years). The negative skew of respondents by age group is consistent with the age profile of eligible PSA members (see Appendix A). However, the total South Australian Public Sector shows a younger (and flatter) profile. Only 20.3% of survey respondents (and 22.3% of eligible PSA members) were less than 40 years old, compared to 35.8% of the Public Sector as a whole (noting the Public Sector includes a high number of teachers, nurses and police who are likely to be members of other unions).

Most respondents (80.9%) reported working primarily in Metropolitan Adelaide, with 16.5% reporting working mainly in regional areas. Only 0.4% were unable to specify one main location and reported working across both regional and metropolitan areas. The remaining 2.1% failed to provide a response.

4.1

WORKPLACE

Almost all survey respondents worked in a Government agency, department or health service. The proportion of respondents usually working in each Government Agency (or Department) is shown in Figure 30. The highest proportion of respondents came from the Departments of Families and Communities and Health, with 21.7% and 21.4%, respectively.

Figure 30: Government Agency of usual work

Agency of employment (n=3,258)

30% 21.7% 21.4% 20% 12.5% 9.6% 9.4%

10%

5.4%

3.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.2% 2.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.9% No response

None of the above

Tourism

Parliament or Electorate staff

Trade & Economic Development

Planning & Local Government

Auditor-General's

Water

Primary Industries & Resources

Environment

Premier & Cabinet

Treasury & Finance

Further Ed., Employment, Science & Technology

Education & Children's Services

Transport, Energy & Infrastructure

Justice

Health

Families & Communities

%

Of the 120 respondents who indicated they worked in a Government Business Enterprise or a Statutory Authority, most common responses were for the Legal Services Commission and WorkCover SA. Twenty-two enterprises or statutory authorities were listed in the 38 ‘other’ responses. The distribution of respondents 1

Tables and figures include all respondents, except where otherwise indicated in a table note.

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

16

within the different areas of the Justice; Transport, Energy and Infrastructure; Families and Communities; Trade and Economic Development; and Environment portfolios are shown in Appendix B. Almost two-thirds of respondents (62.3%) were classified as administrative services officers (ASO). Of the remainder, the most common employment classifications were operational services officers (OPS) and allied health professional (AHP) with 12.3% and 8.6% of respondents, respectively, in each classification (see Appendix B). Most respondents (87.2%) reported they had ongoing employment, while 6.7% reported they were on contract.

Respondents reported being employed for an average of 37.1 hours per week, and working and average of 2.7 hours overtime per week. Eighty-five percent of this overtime was unpaid. The distribution of paid and unpaid overtime, by the usual hours the member is employed for reveals that the time spent on paid overtime was relatively consistent for all categories, the amount of unpaid overtime was higher for those working longer hours, overall (see Figure 31).

Figure 31: Average hours of paid and unpaid overtime by the average hours respondent is employed to work

Overtime

Hours

Unpaid 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Paid 5.0

1.5

0.9

0.9

0 to 8 hours 9 to 16 hours (n=19) (n=51)

1.0

2.2

1.6 0.3

0.3

0.4

17 to 24 hours (n=178)

25 to 32 hours (n=277)

33 to 40 hours (n=2431)

0.9

More than 40 hours (n=274)

Hours employed to work

Administrative work was common for respondents, and also the most common area of work for the work areas of respondents. One-third of respondents (33.5%) reported usually being engaged in administrative work, while almost one-quarter worked in units predominantly engaged with administration (see Appendix B).

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

17

APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Figure A 1: Gender distribution of survey respondents compared to eligible PSA members and the total SA Public Sector

Gender Survey 80%

64.2%

Eligible PSA members 65.9%

Public sector (total)

65.7%

60% 35.8%

40%

34.3%

34.1%

20% % Female

Male 23

Source Public Sector data: Table 3. ,

Figure A 2: Age distribution of respondents compared to eligible PSA members and the total SA Public Sector

Age group Survey

25%

PSA member

Public Sector 22.2% 19.8%

20% 15% 11.1% 9.3%

10% 4.9%

5% 0%

9.9% 8.6% 7.5% 8.0% 7.5%

15.9% 15.2% 14.7% 12.4% 12.2% 11.7%

19.4%

18.8%

16.1% 13.1% 9.1%

9.6% 6.2%

4.5% 3.8%

2.1% 1.6% 1.4%

1.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.1%

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

Source Public Sector data: Table 3.

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 and over

3

2

Proportions presented for demographic questions include eligible responses only.

Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. (2009). South Australian Public Sector Workforce Information, June 2009: Government of South Australia 3

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

18

APPENDIX B: PORTFOLIOS AND TYPE OF WORK

Figure A 3: Area of employment: Justice portfolio

Justice portfolio (n=407) 35.4%

30%

24.3% 11.8%

10%

3.9%

3.7%

1.7%

1.0% SA Metropolitan Fire Service

16.0%

20%

State Emergency Service

40%

2.0%

0.2%

Figure A 4: Area of employment: Transport, Energy & Infrastructure portfolio

Families and Communities portfolio (n=708) 50%

100%

40%

80%

30%

60%

20%

40%

10%

20%

0.6%

% Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure

TransAdelaide

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

No response

Figure A 5: Area of employment: Families & Communities portfolio

Transport, Energy and Infrastructure portfolio (n=312) 99.4%

Electoral Commission of SA

Country Fire Service

SA Fire and Emergency Services Commission

Courts Administration Authority

SA Police

Attorney-General's Department

Department of Correctional Services

%

44.4% 34.9% 19.8% 0.1%

0.8%

% Department Housing SA for Families and Communities

Families SA

Disabilities No response SA

19

Figure A 6: Area of employment: Trade & Economic Development portfolio

Figure A 7: Area of employment: Environment portfolio

Trade and Economic Development portfolio (n=15) 100%

93.3%

Environment portfolio (n=121) 100%

80%

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

6.7%

88.4%

10.7%

20%

0.8%

%

% Department of Trade and Economic Development

Defence SA

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Environment Protection Authority

No response

20

Figure A 8: Description of the usual nature of respondents work and the work usually undertaken by their work unit

Usual nature of your work

Usual nature of work in your work unit

40% 33.5%

30% 23.0%

20%

11.5%

10%

10.2%

9.6% 7.0%

5.9% 3.3%

8.2% 8.8% 4.5% 4.1%

4.5%

6.4%

5.9% 4.0% 4.1%

3.6% 3.1%

3.3%

2.6%

3.9%

3.9% 2.0% 2.0%

2.0% 2.0%

0%

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact

21

1.7% 1.7%

1.4% 2.1%

1.0% 1.5%

1.4% 1.4%

5.0%