I think it's a difficult one; it's a major financial risk, and if there isn't anything exchanged it's a huge additional cost.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
It is an extra impost,but could be repaid in subtle ways such as higher staff morale overall which > higher productivity?
@vanbadham1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VeritasEver
For increased productivity to save money, you'd have to let staff go, which is unlikely.
@vanbadham1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive! @
@vanbadham1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VeritasEver
To be more specific; the unions would have to agree to cut back on staffing to mitigate the financial risk.
@vanbadham1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @VeritasEver
Otherwise the organisations would have to cut services to fund the additional outlay.
@vanbadham1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @VeritasEver
Because as we all know, the conservative government isn't going to give the DSS an extra 40-100mil for DV leave!
@vanbadham1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
the point is the govt should fund DV leave for its employees. And $40-100mill for 1 dept is grossly inflated!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emelinegaske
But blaming depts who have already had billions cut from their budgets isn't really fair...
@VeritasEver@vanbadham3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
whose blaming the depts rather than the govt who finds the dept?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The original linked article blamed both, I didn't think it was fair. @VeritasEver @vanbadham
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.