The Public Purse - Having your snout in it, or how Parliamentary Staff Cuts are the fault of John Key.

Someone is making a story up. The PSA are a very noisy union all about feathering the nest of those that have been employed at the cost to the public purse, they are troughers.

I do have to say that  that really is what a union is, the what's in it for the worker, regardless of the cost to the work (employers) mentality. IT's not about "fair" or "equitable" it's about "protectionism".

So then via Parliamentary Staff Cut - politics - national | Stuff.co.nz.

"The festive season is somewhat subdued at Parliament this year after advisers, managers, press secretaries, librarians and executive assistants lost their jobs.

Most of the staff employed within the parliamentary precinct are employed by the Parliamentary Service, which this year was reorganised in a bid to cut costs.

As with elsewhere in the public sector, back office functions are being amalgamated."

All of which seems very logical and normal part of cutting your cloth to suit your needs - we're not flush with cash as a country and there is over-population in some sectors of public service. Right then carry on :

"General manager Geoff Thorn said this had resulted in the senior management team being reduced from six to four."
and
"Much of the reduction had been achieved through natural attrition but two librarians were made redundant, he said"
and
"Executive assistants to MPs are employed on fixed-term "events-based" contracts around each election. That means their contracts terminate when the MPs they work for are no longer members"

Well excuse me if Labour had better policy and leadership they'd have more MP's, And that's about the long and short of it. How does Brenda Pilott -  http://www.psa.org.nz - get to her statement that this is only bad for opposition MP's. And that this was picked up and re-tweeted by Trevor Mallard - who knows who pulls the strings.



When you realise that the PSA values are the core of the Labour party then it all becomes a bit clearer. The 'facts' are that rather than have a realistic outlook on what we can afford, or should have, we 'need' to have over staff, multiple layers of overlapping and duplicating services. The unions will fight tooth and nail to ensure that they draw every dollar out of their employer, in this case it's about how many tax dollars can they get their hands on rather then it being available to essential services and the really needy.

The PSA then appear to want to be all about troughing at the public purse, with no accountability or any requirement to have efficiencies or productivity of any kind. Which is really scary. That the EA's that are on contract and being let got get redundancy and doubtless some will be re-employed at a better or same rate seem appalling.



It's just greed. Out and out self centered greed, and blindness to the obvious. And it makes me angry that someone would assert that something that happens every election, with regard to the EA's, can only be a bad thing for the opposition even though the article says "The Greens and NZ First are currently interviewing EAs." and that this clearly is the faulty of the new government and unacceptable to the union.