SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BUDGET IMPACT SURVEY PART 2 - STAFF IMPACT

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 1

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

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.

http://www.aisr.adelaide.edu.au/

AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact i

CONTENTS

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

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 2

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

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

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

4 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 ii

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


KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE

KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE 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 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.


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 –


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

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

16.8%14.3%

10.1%

6.7%4.1% 3.8%

7.6%

27.7%

8.9%

%

10%

20%

30%

Would consider a separation

package

More likely to resign from job & seek

opportunities outside SA

Gov

More likely to leave job & seek other

opportunities within SA Gov

Likely to work longer

More likely to retire earlier

Other Was already planning to

retire/resign within 5 yrs

No intention to

resign/retire in next 5 years

Don't know

Career for next 5 years


package

More likely to resign

from job & seek

opportunities outside

SA Gov

More likely to leave job

& seek other

opportunities within SA Gov

Likely to work longer


Was already

planning to retire/ resign

within 5 yrs

No intention to

resign/ retire in next 5 years

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


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

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.

31.1% 29.2%35.9% 33.9%

41.3% 45.4% 27.0%40.4%

11.1% 11.5%21.5%

8.3%

16.4% 13.8% 15.6% 17.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


package

More likely to resign from job &

seek opportunities

outside SA Gov

More likely to leave job & seek

other opportunities within SA Gov


Contributing factors

Other

Reduced options for other work

Reduced entitlements

Staff cuts


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

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).

28.8%

57.2%

1.2% 3.1%9.7%

17.6%

56.6%

1.9%

14.2%9.7%

%

20%

40%

60%

Yes, adequately staffed

No, inadequately

staffed

Overstaffed Don't know No response

Staffing levels

Your unit Your agency


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

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

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%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reallocation of duties (n=1740)

Budget-related, 78.6%

Skill shortage, 2.6%

Efficiency dividend, 3.7%

Reduced number of

staff required to do the

work, 14.7%

No response, 0.3%

Reason for cutbacks (n-1,744)


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

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

57.9% 52.3% 47.5%35.2%

42.1% 47.7% 52.5%64.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes - significant cutbacks

Yes - moderate cutbacks

Yes - minor cutbacks

No cutbacks

Leaving role or sector

No

Yes

28.8%

57.2%

1.2% 3.1%9.7%

17.6%

56.6%

1.9%

14.2%9.7%

%

20%

40%

60%

Yes, adequately staffed

No, inadequately

staffed

Overstaffed Don't know No response

Staffing levels

Your unit Your agency


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

Figure 10: Satisfaction with current work and workload

Figure 11: Stressed with current work and workload

3.733.37 3.31 3.22

2.86

3.38

2.90

1

2

3

4

5

Satisfaction with job

Workload makes me feel

stressed

Workload makes me feel

overworked

Ability to get through

workload in normal

working hours

Quality of my work is

adversely affected

because of my workload

My job allows me to make a

difference

Work has an adverse effect on my health

Curent work and workload

1.6%8.4%

32.0% 31.7%26.2%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always

Satisfied

1.7%

13.0%

45.7%

26.1%

13.5%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Stress

Almost

always

Never


Figure 12: Feel overworked by current work and workload

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

Figure 14: Quality of work adversely affected by current workload

Figure 15: Current job allows me to make a difference

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

2.4%

16.3%

42.7%

25.2%

13.4%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Feel overworked

6.8%

20.9%

32.0%

24.5%

15.8%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Get through workload

6.8%

28.9%

42.4%

15.6%

6.4%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Quality of work affected

4.6%

14.7%

35.2%29.3%

16.2%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Make a difference

7.5%

25.8%

43.1%

16.0%

7.5%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Health & wellbeing affected


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

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

2.242.00

2.47 2.302.59

2.05 1.902.28 2.14

2.37

1

2

3

4

5

Efficiency in the work unit

Ability of the work unit to cover regular and unplanned job

absences

The ability to do my job

My workload The quality of my work

Work impact

Impact last 12 months Future impact

11.9%

49.5%

23.1%

2.4% 0.6%12.4%

23.4%

49.7%

20.5%

2.6% 1.0% 2.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative

Positive Very positive Not applicable

Efficiency in work unit



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

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

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

21.9%

49.1%

13.7%2.3% 0.7%

12.2%

32.4%45.5%

16.6%1.7% 1.0% 2.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Cover job absences


6.5%

39.8% 37.6%

2.5% 0.8%12.9%16.2%

41.5% 36.1%

2.3% 0.9% 3.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Ability to do job


11.5%

45.4%

26.2%

2.6% 0.7%13.5%

20.5%

45.5%

28.4%

2.0% 0.7% 2.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Workload



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

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 2010-

11 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).

4.4%

34.0%44.9%

2.6% 1.0%13.1%14.5%

35.9%43.2%

2.4% 0.9% 3.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Quality of work



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

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

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

2.18 2.16 2.14 2.01 2.17

1.712.02 2.05 2.04 1.92 2.04

1.60

1

2

3

4

5

My ability to make long term plans about my

work

The pressure I experience at

work

Stress levels My morale Job satisfaction My confidence in the SA

government as an employer

Personal impact


19.6%

36.1%28.2%

1.7% 0.7%13.7%

29.4%39.6%

25.1%

1.8% 0.8% 3.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Long term work plans


14.9%

48.3%

21.9%

1.4% 0.7%12.8%

23.6%

48.1%

23.3%

1.6% 0.7% 2.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Pressure experienced



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

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

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

17.0%

45.5%

22.6%

1.6% 0.6%12.6%

25.6%

46.0%

23.4%

1.6% 0.8% 2.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Stress levels


26.1%40.3%

17.8%2.4% 0.9%

12.5%

33.1%43.5%

18.2%

2.0% 1.0% 2.3%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Morale


19.8%

39.2%24.3%

3.2% 0.8%12.7%

28.2%41.4%

24.7%

2.2% 1.1% 2.4%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Job satisfaction



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

44.8%

28.6%

11.5%1.3% 1.3%

12.4%

55.5%

30.5%

9.3%1.2% 1.5% 2.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Confidence in SA government as employer



4 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

In total, 3,380 members of the PSA of South Australia1 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

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.

21.7% 21.4%

12.5%9.6% 9.4%

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%

%

10%

20%

30%

Fam

ilies

& C

om

mu

nit

ies

Hea

lth

Just

ice

Tran

spo

rt, E

ner

gy &

In

fras

tru

ctu

re

Edu

cati

on

& C

hild

ren

's

Serv

ices

Furt

her

Ed

., E

mp

loym

ent,

Sc

ien

ce &

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Trea

sury

& F

inan

ce

Pre

mie

r &

Cab

inet

Envi

ron

men

t

Pri

mar

y In

du

stri

es &

R

eso

urc

es Wat

er

Au

dit

or-

Gen

eral

's

Pla

nn

ing

& L

oca

l G

ove

rnm

ent

Trad

e &

Eco

no

mic

D

evel

op

men

t

Par

liam

ent

or

Elec

tora

te

staf

f

Tou

rism

No

ne

of

the

abo

ve

No

res

po

nse

Agency of employment (n=3,258)


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

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).

1.50.9 1.0

1.62.2

5.0

0.90.3 0.3 0.4

0.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 to 8 hours (n=19)

9 to 16 hours (n=51)

17 to 24 hours

(n=178)

25 to 32 hours

(n=277)

33 to 40 hours

(n=2431)

More than 40 hours

(n=274)

Ho

urs

Hours employed to work

Overtime

Unpaid Paid


APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

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

Source Public Sector data: Table 3. 2

,3

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

Source Public Sector data: Table 3.3

2 Proportions presented for demographic questions include eligible responses only.

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

Government of South Australia

64.2%

35.8%

65.9%

34.1%

65.7%

34.3%

%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Female Male

Gender

Survey Eligible PSA members Public sector (total)

1.0%

3.8%

7.5%8.0%

11.7%

15.9%

22.2%

19.4%

9.1%

1.4%

0.1%

1.6%

4.5%

7.5% 8.6%

12.2%

15.2%

19.8%

18.8%

9.6%

2.1%

0.6%

4.9%

9.3% 9.9%11.1%

12.4%14.7%

16.1%

13.1%

6.2%

1.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 and over

Age group

Survey PSA member Public Sector


APPENDIX B: PORTFOLIOS AND TYPE OF WORK

Figure A 3: Area of employment: Justice portfolio

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

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

35.4%

24.3%

16.0%11.8%

3.9% 3.7% 1.7% 1.0% 0.2% 2.0%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Dep

artm

ent

of

Co

rrec

tio

nal

Ser

vice

s

Att

orn

ey-G

ener

al's

D

epar

tmen

t

SA P

olic

e

Co

urt

s A

dm

inis

trat

ion

A

uth

ori

ty

SA F

ire

and

Em

erge

ncy

Se

rvic

es C

om

mis

sio

n

Co

un

try

Fire

Ser

vice

Stat

e Em

erge

ncy

Ser

vice

SA M

etro

po

litan

Fir

e Se

rvic

e

Elec

tora

l Co

mm

issi

on

of

SA

No

res

po

nse

Justice portfolio (n=407)

99.4%

0.6%%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Department of Transport, Energy and

Infrastructure

TransAdelaide

Transport, Energy and Infrastructure portfolio (n=312)

44.4%

19.8%

34.9%

0.1% 0.8%%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Department for Families

and Communities

Housing SA Families SA Disabilities SA

No response

Families and Communities portfolio (n=708)


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

Figure A 7: Area of employment: Environment portfolio

93.3%

6.7%

%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Department of Trade and Economic Development

Defence SA

Trade and Economic Development portfolio (n=15)

88.4%

10.7%0.8%

%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Environment Protection Authority

No response

Environment portfolio (n=121)


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

33.5%

9.6%

7.0%5.9%

4.5% 4.5% 4.0% 3.6% 3.3% 2.6% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% 1.0% 1.4%

3.9%

8.2%

23.0%

11.5%

3.3%

10.2%

4.1%5.9%

4.1%3.1%

6.4%

3.9%2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4%

5.0%

8.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Usual nature of your work Usual nature of work in your work unit

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BUDGET IMPACT SURVEY PART 2 - STAFF IMPACT

Documents

Transcript of SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BUDGET IMPACT SURVEY PART 2 - STAFF IMPACT