When I was working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade I found myself as the campaign manager for the local body election campaign of my friend who was the Labour candidate. It was one of those things. You go to a meeting (always a big mistake) and walk out with a job to do. I recognised it was something that might see my name out and about, so I went to see my boss. He was a staunch National supporter, I think a member. He listened to my case, and said that it was fine, and despite our differences he said would always defend my right to participate in the political process.
Public servants are ever conscious of their role to serve the government of the day, and of the restrictions placed on them by the Code of Conduct. That is what makes the Department of Labour decision to effectively tell its staff that they could not participate in the rally at Parliament today on Pay Equity very disturbing. There may well be questions about the involvement of some senior staff or perhaps those directly connected with the work, but the wider staff of the Department of Labour should in my opinion have had the right to go to the rally if they chose to.
In recent election campaigns I have noticed that public servants seemed to be getting inconsistent and inaccurate advice about how involved they can be in campaigns, including whether they could have hoardings on fences, deliver pamphlets or even be seen with a candidate.
I believe that the rights of public servants to participate in the political process as private citizens need to be protected, and if necessary clarified. Of course their should be guidance as to how to ensure they can continue to serve the government of the day and avoid compromising their ability to provide quality advice and support, but the interpretation of that guidance should respect the professionalism of public servants and give them their hard won democratic rights.
I don’t vote Labour, never have or will but I’d agree with you. It’s bullshit that public servants can’t hold opinions or have views. Of course the neutrality has to be considered but this conflict can’t be the biggest conflict we’ve ever resolved.
we had the same problem at a pay equity rally a while back, where CYFs staff were told they were not allowed to attend the rally during their lunch break (ie out of work hours). this totally sucks.
Grant I agree with your post as long as the Public Servants remembers who they are serving while on our pay, that is neither Labour or National
On the other hand I wonder where you were when a Labour affiliate sacked a member because they dared stand for someone other than Labour
Agree with your point, but the alternative is to do what the private sector unions do – just send an organiser in there and march the members out together. If everyone walks there’s not a lot the boss can do about it.
On the other hand I wonder where you were when a Labour affiliate sacked a member because they dared stand for someone other than Labour
Oh dear, young tories are still falling for that line. Read up on the facts mate, Tan colluded with Rodney Hide and ACT to create a “media storm” to defame the union and promote his own candidacy. That’s why he was sacked.
There’s 200 pages of documentation here if you want to read up: http://www.epmu.org.nz/news/show/172567
So, what is Labour going to do about it when next in government? Do you have a concrete policy to change the Code of Conduct? If so, how?
I ask this as someone who was working in the public service in 2004 and whose employer told staff they were unable to participate in the Seabed and Foreshore Hikoi.
Ok Mark I have read the EPMU statement
He was sacked because
“We maintain that Shawn had a good faith obligation to consult with the union over his candidacy and the implications this would undoubtedly have had on his work
The union has explored alternatives to dismissal but in the circumstances we believe Shawn’s actions have harmed the employment relationship beyond repair.In light of this his employment has been terminated.
The claim is he didn’t ask permision, I note someone who wanted to go Labour had no problems
As I said where you when this happened, standing up for the “hard won democratic rights”
Not when it is for the right obviously
[...] Grant Robertson has blogged his concern about the Department of Labour advising staff they should not take part in a pay equity rally. [...]
Raymon, read the statement:
“Two other EPMU employees have sought approval to stand for public office this year. One was declined entirely due to operational requirements; the other was approved on the basis that her campaigning time commitments are met out of her annual leave.”
The have a look at the timeline (http://www.epmu.org.nz/news/show/172568) and you’ll see why “Shawn’s actions have harmed the employment relationship beyond repair”. He deliberately set out to sabotage the union’s reputation in the media in concert with ACT in order to boost his own political fortunes. He also left a paper trail 200 pages long. Really, what more could he expect?
Love the catch all fudge “the Department of Labour decision to effectively tell its staff that they could not participate”
Effectively where did they effectively say that staff could not participate? And how did this advice differ effectively from SSC guidelines that have been in force for years?
so Grant on the issue of Public Service neutrality, I have have one name for you…. “Madeline Setchell”, go ask Claire about it and hang your head in shame…
Are Labour consistent on this issue? You can’t just grandstand on these issues, you know.
George, National seemed to grandstand pretty well and it never hurt them.
Grant I agree with your post as long as the Public Servants remembers who they are serving while on our pay, that is neither Labour or National
@Raymond – The problem is that Labour spent the last nine years massively increasing the size of the civil service and stacking the new appointments with the Labour party faithful of the ultra-Left.
The reason for this is that Labour and their anti-Kiwi coalition partner the Greens knew that they would eventually lose the legislature but wanted to maintain as much control as they could of the executive.
I’m all for letting civil servants protest government policy.. and sacking those that do. It’s a neutrality test.
good to see this is a matter of interest! First off, lets be clear, if you read the DOL email that was linked in the original post the message is very clear to staff that they should not be at the rally.
I have never pretended that everything was perfect in terms of these sorts of issues under Labour, and I actually said as much in the post.
The essential question remains should public servants have the right to go to a rally on Pay Equity(at lunchtime I might add) or another issue or not?
George, National seemed to grandstand pretty well and it never hurt them.
Measuring yourself by the National Party of 2005-2008 is a pretty low hurdle to pass.
Remember madeline setchell what was her crime she lost her job and was blacklisted from MAF why? thats right her boyfriend worked for national. were you then standing up for that young womens rights then
Interesting question. I think, Grant, that the Department of Labour would say it was protecting staff from a conflict of interest and in that regard, you do have to have some sympathy. The SSC guidelines advise fairly clearly that basically, officials must behave in a manner that would not be detrimental to the work of that particular Ministry.
Whilst I understand and support the idea of Pay Equity, I have some sympathy with DoL in this instance given the nature of its work. However, this is always the question isn’t it… How far can those guidelines be expected to extend. For example, there will be numerous public service staff who support your campaign, and good on them for doing so. It is not defensible to say they cannot, no matter how senior they might be.
But, officials must implement the policy of the government of the day, it is tasked with providing advice without fear or favour, and we know they do. However, when a decision is made, officials must be aligned with that decision or the running of government becomes a difficult task indeed.
I don’t sound particularly supportive here do I.
Political neutrality is a have, it doesn’t exist, the State Sector is a political thing, it is tasked with the implementation of policy of the government of the day, it cannot therefore be neutral. Politicisation happens when political oepratives influence due process, such as the purchase advisor situation Chris Hipkins raised, which wouldn’t have been an issue if they were paid by Ministerial Services.
So, long windedly I think the answer is yes they should be allowed to attend except for where it presents as a professional conflict of interest.
Remember both the Minister and CE resigned following the Setchell affair. She was not well treated.
Mr Mallard, did Jim Anderton resign after he blocked Ms Setchell’s appointment to MAF?
You know the Tories are a pack of hypocrites when they call moral equivalence after a years of screaming “corrupt!”
thank you trevor for admitting that.off all the things in the last 9 years that proberly was the most distastefull .all though i am a tory i am also a father of four daughters.it seemed to me that years of struggle for equality and equal rights for women means nothing when the power of the state was used to crush a young women.i would be upset it the national party did that stuff as well
[...] of Labour that staff were not to attend a rally on pay equity held at Parliament.