Stuffing Up

Gorgeous Dunny makes a welcome return to The Pub with another of his wonderful Memoirs of a Country Employment Counsellor. As always, thank you very much, GD.

(Image Credit: My Opera)

Working for an interstate tourist office in Sydney was a great teacher. There are so many variables in what may go wrong concerning someone’s holiday bookings that you quickly learn a number of failsafe checks to put in place when confirming the booking in the first place.

Even so Murphy’s Law could apply: if anything can possibly go wrong, it will. In the pre-digital age, when Adelaide seemed and was a long distance from Sydney, mistakes could occur of which you might be entirely innocent. To Sydney customers, however, the only thing that matters is that their holiday got spoiled in some way and that they’d trusted you to get it right. They could be quite generous, but if they felt ripped off they could really go for the jugular.

The worst thing you could do, even if it was true, was to attempt to shift the blame by claiming someone in South Australia messed it up. So I quickly learned to put myself in the customer’s shoes, identifying how it would have upset them, and accept responsibility for the error. If you could make good in some way you did, but admission of error was the key to regaining client confidence. It served me well then and even better when I got to managerial level.

I was able to win over aggrieved people by this approach. Even on the rare occasions when it was an error by one of my staff, there was no way I’d hang that person out to dry. If you were being paid as Manager, I felt you were obliged to accept responsibility for your staff. (Afterwards in private might be a different thing and might warrant a boot just to make sure it didn’t happen again.) That approach was good for morale and responsibility, while still keeping the customer paramount.

By the time I got into counselling, that attitude was pretty well in my genes. Mistakes will occur, even by me. What matters more is accepting them and what you do to rectify the error or make amends.

The worst one I can remember occurred in the most innocent of ways. The Hamilton CES Manager approached me to help with a dilemma.

Thorntons, a Penshurst-based agricultural engineering company, was feeling the pinch with the collapse of the wool industry prices. With no new orders coming in, they needed to retrench staff. Even worse, although Thorntons were a good recruiter of apprentices, they wanted to terminate one of their apprentices after two years. The lad in question, David, had coped adequately with the first two years of his boiler-making apprenticeship, but the feeling was that he’d have trouble with the more demanding third and fourth years.

The Manager wanted me to see David to cushion the blow of losing his job, and to help in placing him in an alternative occupation. So I arranged to interview him at the CES to discuss the possibilities. I went over it fairly tactfully, especially the point that the employer did not feel that David would be able to complete the apprenticeship anyway.

I was keen to secure alternative employment for him and discussed some possibilities. Among those I was most hopeful for was to join the armed services. If he was capable, having two years apprenticeship training, he may be able to complete his trade occupation. Alternatively, if that was beyond him, he may be able to complete a less demanding metal trade such as fitting or welding. I gave him the Services brochures and arranged for a recruiting officer to see him on their next call at Hamilton.

David had been fairly quiet, but had generally seemed agreeable to where I was taking it. So I felt reasonably satisfied that I’d made a difficult task a little less painful. Thorntons were well regarded as an employer and it seemed reasonable to cooperate with them in lean times.

But it was not so simple. David’s mother rang the CES Manager the next day and was furious. She made it clear that David was not interested in joining the services. She felt even stronger about Thorntons’ role in the matter, believing that it was cynical to avoid their responsibility just because they were struggling. By this time I was talking to her.

She said that it was too late to be wondering if David could cope with the apprenticeship. He had been recruited in open competition, and all of his school records were given to Thorntons. It included all details of a learning disability he had had. So they should have known exactly what they were in for with David. This was the first I’d heard of a disability, and I asked her to leave it with me. I immediately contacted Thorntons and requested all records on David’s application and appointment.

Sure enough, it confirmed exactly what his mother had said to me. David’s entire school records were in this file. It included full details of a disability David had, known as Specific Learning Disabilities.

It is a most unusual one, in that the person does not have an intellectual disability or limitation. Such people are capable of learning and developing, but the disability can make learning difficult for them, and the pathway may be slower than for others. Where it is addressed, however, with individual support and understanding, the person will make progress towards the desired goal. David had obtained that support through high school following the successful intervention of the Education Department Psychology Unit. It had enabled his progress to year 11 to be relatively normal.

What got me more curious, however, was his choice of boiler-making for a career. It is the most demanding, in mathematics and science, of the metal trades. One of the others such as welding, or fitting and turning would surely have been less challenging for him with a learning disability. I put that question to his mother. Her response was, “Oh, he’s wanted to be a boilermaker for as long as I can remember. Since about aged 13 years, he’s spent just about all his leisure time in the shed at the back working on boiler-making.”

It is extraordinary that Thorntons should have missed or overlooked his learning disability when recruiting and interviewing. Perhaps it helped that David was very clear in his own mind what he wanted to do, and he probably ticked all the right boxes when interviewed and/or tested. And he performed satisfactorily for the first two years of his apprenticeship. It was only when demand for business collapsed and the management asked whether they could afford three apprentices, that they looked hard at David’s productivity. It was fair to say that his performance might have been below that of the other two. But it had still been good enough to pass his first two years.

Given his school records, there is no question that David would have qualified for the Disabled Apprentice Wage Subsidy (DAWS) Labour Market Program (LMP). I have long regarded DAWS as the best and most effective of our LMPs. Its value is that when applied effectively it will enable a person with a disability to obtain trade skills and qualifications. Once a person is trade qualified, he/she has marketable employment skills, usually in demand.

The disability itself is thus less a factor in selecting a person for a job. It is simply a matter of if they have the skills and qualifications to do a particular job. It shifts the focus to that, rather than what a person may not be able to do because of a disability. In other words a person thus qualified is competitive in the job market, whether obtaining or retaining work. That person in all probability will not need to claim disability pension or unemployment benefits. In addition to empowering that person, it will lead to a public saving in social security benefits.

The best-known feature of the DAWS program was its wage subsidy, which was then $135 per week for the duration of the apprenticeship. In practice that meant that as a proportion of the apprentice wage, it came down as the wage increased. In the first year, it was nearly 100% of the wage. In the second year it was still quite a hefty percentage of the wage. But in the third year, and more so in the fourth year, it became a smaller percentage of the wage paid. If the apprenticeship stretched into five years or longer, the wage subsidy continued until qualified.

Approval for DAWS, however, can invoke more than just the wage subsidy to the employer. Other assistance was aimed at the apprentice to enable him/her to work, or to cope with training. Somebody with a severe disability may need some modifications to the workplace to produce on the same terms as others. Somebody with literacy or learning difficulties can get individual tutorial assistance in order to learn the theory parts of the training.

With David having a Specific Learning Difficulty disability, this last-mentioned tutorial assistance would have been very valuable. It seems that he coped with the first two years without any intervention. But in the third and fourth years, there are stronger mathematics and geospatial components. In particular you need to be able to read plans and blueprints. Thorntons’ concerns about David coping with years three and four could have been genuine, but DAWS tutorial assistance might have helped overcome the problem.

I rang Thorntons about DAWs assistance for David in the hope that they might reconsider. But having persuaded themselves that David would not make it, they were not prepared to reconsider, even with DAWS. It placed me in an awkward position with David’s mother. In my opinion, she was justified in feeling that the employer had stuffed up, firstly by not reading all the reports on David and secondly attempting to use the slump to avoid their responsibility. The State Training Board Representative, the CES and I were also at fault for taking the employer’s side.

Personally, I felt it more than I disclosed to her. The way I looked at it, I had gone along with the briefings of the others when I interviewed David. I broke one of the most fundamental rules of successful counselling. That is, you should never make or plan any action without checking all the facts. That is the value of a professional, that although you accept briefings you never take any information for granted. You must try to gather all available information before resolving on an action.

All she knew was that I’d done a sales pitch on her son to convince him to accept a change of vocation. That was true, but what was less excusable, at least to myself and to my own standards, was that I didn’t act independently. I’d never have acted as I did if I’d known what was in David’s school reports. I stuffed up as badly as the others.

The error must be acknowledged, but the most important thing then is not so much to lament it but to take some action to retrieve things. David still has no job or career prospect. I contact my own peer seniors at State Office. It was not so much that I needed to be told what to do. It is more that it is a professional resource centre. I can get advice on any disability. What I wanted was a reference to an educational psychologist who specialised in Specific Learning Disability. They supplied me with such a person. I arranged an appointment for David to be assessed.

It meant he had to travel to Melbourne. So I arranged travel for him and his parents to go for this assessment. Some time afterwards I received a phone briefing from the psychologist and a written assessment.

Interestingly, his opinion was similar to mine after I’d read the Education Department reports on David. That is, that boiler-making was a very big challenge for David, and that he might have been better served in going for one of the less demanding metal trades. However, he thought that having passed two years of it, he probably could complete it with difficulty. It may just take him longer than the normal four years.

The State Training Board Representative had responsibility for apprentices, and I contacted him with this subsequent information. He arranged for David to work for an “independent” employer for two weeks in order to be assessed on his suitability to complete years three and four.

His report was favourable, and he saw no reason that David would not be able to complete his apprenticeship. With Thorntons unwilling to re-employ him, David thus went onto an unplaced apprentices list.

Basically that meant that he would remain registered unemployed and claiming benefits until we could find a new employer for him. It was not a perfect situation, but he and his family were reasonably satisfied with it.

I did have an additional weapon with his DAWS eligibility, even if Thorntons declined to use it. I arranged for our disability placement agency to take him as a client. In that respect, he was a good prospect for them. He was motivated and work-ready. In addition to attracting the subsidy, the tutorial assistance available to him ought to ensure he completes his apprenticeship and is trade qualified.

It turned out exactly like that. He remained registered unemployed for about three months, but an employer was found, and I approved DAWS program assistance for him. That was at Warrnambool, which required relocating, but neither David nor his parents were concerned about that. Besides, a living away from home allowance was paid then. I saw him with the signing up and with the filling in of paperwork for DAWS assistance. He was happy about the shift and seemed to have established a good relationship with his employer.

His employer was well informed of David’s limitations and needs. He established his work requirements around that. By a coincidence, I happened to know the employer socially. I asked about his progress, without revealing the full extent of my involvement.

The employer said that he was satisfied with David as an employee, albeit he did have some limitations. He was a little slow on some tasks, and he was not good at reading blueprints. But knowing of these, he was able to work the tasks around what David could do. The placement agency also played a role in helping him with those components where he needed mentoring on the job, as well as arranging tutorial support at TAFE.

So with just a little more support and supervision David was able to become trade-qualified. It took him over five years because of his learning difficulty, but he was able to learn. And the DAWS program assistance continued for the duration of his apprenticeship. Once qualified, he had skills in demand and good prospects of work. His employer mentioned that there would always be some limits because of how he could read blueprints, but he was employable.

Stuff-ups will occur. It is recognising it and retrieving the situation that matters more.


Happy Valentines Day Raffles

I wish a Happy Valentines Day to all Pubsters.

For The Ladies

These days we all need a bit of lovin. Having to put up with

images (36)

But Fear not Valentines Day Raffles are here

images (37)

Sadly Ned Lost on the punt last week . Bad dog030But,  we go again tonight so Ask CK. For your numbers and remember to always look to the future

These LIB Pricks won,t last long


Have a Good Night

Rumblings under the surface

Johnston Magoo

It’s pretty clear by now the incursion into Indonesian waters has been deliberate.

The last thing the government and the Navy would want would be a lifeboat, purchased with Australian tax dollars, with a supercargo of poor boat people, shoved into it by force and guarded by Navy personnel for at least some of the journey, left to founder in stormy seas with all on board it drowned.

Either there were orders to play it safe, including violating Indonesian territory if necessary, or the captains involved used their initiative and, out of compassion and/or duty, escorted the lifeboats to as close to the Indonesian shoreline as possible.

That they turned their navigation lights off (and, it seems, their GPS transponders) indicates that the incursions were definitely considered in advance and that there was a procedure for doing so decided upon.

Once is happenstance. Twice is co-incidence. Three times is enemy action. FIVE times is policy.

For the likes of Carlton to be (to use one of his favourite words) blathering on about the anachronistic structure of Northern Command (going back to 1942, don’t ya know… when you could argue it had a purpose) as a result of “insider” information – at odds it seems with other “insider” information from others who have Navy mates – seems to be a red herring. “Heads will roll” was his confident prediction. I bet you they don’t, unless the officers involved breached Indonesian security of their own accord.

If there are to be sacrificial lambs, they’d better not be from the ranks of junior naval officers, given the opportunity to use their judgement of the position at sea, and then sacked for doing just that. It wouldn’t be long before the queue of volunteers for OpSov command duty thinned out considerably. Who wants to sacrifice their career advancement for the likes of Abbott and Morrison?

Much merriment has been made of Defence Minister David Johnston’s comments about how OpSov is a civilian operation, albeit using elements of the armed forces. He should tell Scott Morrison that. Perhaps he has? Perhaps forcefully. Notice that as soon as the shit hits the fan, they start squabbling and pointing fingers… so far at third parties, but how long until they swing the digits around and start mouthing each other off?

Here we have what was an entirely predictable quandary.

We have a Defence Minister who is not allowed to make day-to-day decisions regarding forces nominally under his responsibility. Instead the buffoon Morrison, is being allowed to wallow in the dubious glory of “stopping the boats”, quoting military security (not “civilian security”) as the reason for refusing to disclose any details at all, causing journalists to guess at what’s been really happening, allowing scandals to brew and then being left with nothing more than cheap references to “patriotism” to defend Johnston’s defence assets.

No wonder Johnston is angry. I suspect he’s as angry with Morrison as he claims to be with the ABC. Johnston’s hands are tied. His men are doing the work, and copping the flak, while Morrison is accruing the glory (except when he’s apologizing on their behalf), insiders tell Carlton that “heads will roll”, and any criticism of the Navy is written off as lefty ABC hatred of Australia.

And in the middle of all this, naval assets are being nominally commanded by an army general who’s spent as much time on the “reserve” list as he has in uniform in recent years, only got his third star because he’s a pal of the Liberals, and has been a rampant critic of past Labor governments. They needed a ranking, nodding head to front up at press conferences and say “No comment”, so Angus “Mr. Magoo” Campbell got the gig. What the hell would he know about life at sea?

The shouting Johnston indulged in, bellowing at the ABC was, I suspect, as much directed at Morrison as the national broadcaster. Except Johnston can’t criticise Morrison in public, so he biffed the ABC instead. The government line is that reporting the accusations of asylum seekers (“They’re not even Australians!”) against the brave boys and girls of the Navy is un-Australian, despite the dawning realization among journalists and the public that there is more to them than Morrison would admit.

Telling a journalist to naff off is guaranteed to get their gander up. It is guaranteed to get different media organizations vying with each other to get the scoop.

It’s all well and good for tame Murdoch hacks to sit back and wait for the phone to ring from the Cabinet room, bragging about their “exclusive” insider information. But unfortunately the various stories that are filtering through are beginning to fray around the edges. Inconsistencies are creeping in. Version control has gone to hell as each new media revelation requires the official story to be molded into shape around it, to better fit the new “Facts”.

From an outright denial that anything happened, we now appear to have an admission that something did indeed “happen”. Something involving the use of physical force at (at least) low levels, conflicted understandings of the rules of engagement regarding breaching Indonesian sovereign waters, the extinguishment of navigation lights, life-boats being towed, rivalries and disagreement between cabinet ministers, confused chains of command, drownings and, almost indisputably, what is tantamount to piracy on the high seas by the Royal Australian Navy.

As this story develops, I doubt whether the anti-ABC mantras of the government – as the sole explanation for all the confusion – can continue to be maintained.

The reason there is confusion is because the government’s policy is to confuse: to confuse the people smugglers (let’s take them at their word on that), to confuse the Indonesians, and to confuse the Australian people. They can hardly now claim to be upset that their policy has succeeded spectacularly.

Morrison was warned that, in place of factual information, speculation would run rife. It has thus come to pass.

He should have realized, from the media reaction to Labor’s proposed media laws, that the media doesn’t like criticism, and has the means to do something about it.

Reinstituting D-Notices, blustering at the Ultimo lefties, appeals to patriotism, the selective leaking of more and more bizarre versions of the story to explain the latest revelations, calls for “heads to roll” and the pathetic pseudo-military posturing of the pugnacious Morrison won’t cut it for much longer.

Apart from the success or otherwise of the Stop The Boats policy, there’s ample evidence that the public doesn’t care anymore. Boats have never been high on the list of issues exercising the public’s imaginations. Sure, when asked by pollsters they say they want them stopped, but it’s not a towering concern for them. Jobs, education, health… they are the biggies. “Boats” was only ever a proxy issue, something designed by bored journalists and Coalition lurk merchants to provide something for Labor and Liberal to argue over… and for the Coalition to win the argument.

Once the “Boats” really are stopped, what will the public care about them? When the confected, ersatz conflict is resolved, what then? Will there be big changes to, say, traffic jams on the M4 Motorway? Will the rape statistics go down? Will we see swarthy men of Middle Eastern appearance no longer spitting on the street?

Punter concern will return to (if it ever left) jobs, education and health, I suppose. Oh, and the economy too, something the government has been busy telling us is destroyed with nothing but gloom, unemployment and near-recession in store for it. Put those credit cards away. Joe Hockey says bad times are coming. Well… it worked when they were in Opposition. The only problem was that Joe was supposed to solve the problem, not revel in it.

Something’s got to give. Cabinet is already leaking. We know the supposedly “confidential” SPCA cabinet numbers (11-9 against). More secrets are about to be revealed as runners from the Coalition side tie up their shoe laces for the sprint away from the Abbott ideologues and the other Tea Party-type crazies.

The ABC has grovelled, all but apologizing. Navy insiders have spun a web of contradictions through their media contacts. Bootstrappers are about, trying to establish common wisdom before it’s too late. Denials that the story had any truth to it at all are being replaced by “So what if we did?”.

Only one person, a Somali man named Yousif Ibrahim Fasher, has stuck to his guns. His quiet determination to get the tale out has put our government and our media to shame. It has caused Cabinet to get involved in a turf war.

Heads may well yet roll… but whose heads?