Post by martinconnolly on Oct 22, 2016 2:27:57 GMT
I had met with Iain a couple of weeks ago and part of our discussion was about local government as a potential target for employment schemes and job guarantee.
I took from this the obvious benefit for those employed but also working on promoting the job guarantee as a bit of a trojan horse for MMT - which is why Iain and Tim formed the party I guess.
We discussed 'local action' and that we cold all approach our local council and find out what sort of jobs they could create if they had funding.
This was to dispel the perception that all JG jobs would be moving dirt, or even just moving holes around.
I thought about it for a few days - who could I approach at our local council - Central Coast NSW - which is also going through an amalgamation.
Then I realised that my company had recently been a sponsor at a conference held by LGNSW - see lgnsw.org.au - they represent all NSW councils.
So I searched their site and found they are working on this NSW local government workforce strategy 2016-2020.
I had a meeting this week with one of the team putting this together.
Here are the notes I made before the meeting:
Local government is a big employer.
Can make positions available quickly if it has funding
Believe that 100% employment is a need.
Productivity. Gives people dignity and purpose.
Hypothetical:
LG can get whatever it takes to meet local needs for local services
Nationally eg $1B creating jobs @ say $40k = 25k jobs
NSW 32% = 8000 or 62 per average council
What additional services could be provided?
What services could be extended?
How much employment would this create?
Outcome
Economic
62 * $40k = $2.5M into the community
say 2/3 spend in the community - shops, trades,...
say 1/2 of that spent in turn by shopowners, tradies,... so 1/3
thats $5M increase in the local GDP
thats $2B increase in the natinal GDP
Social
62 people (8000) with more dignity and purpose, less stress
62 people (8000) not looking for jobs that aren't there, feeling useless. homeless?
Better businesses locally, reducing downturn, rate of depressions and suicide.
All it needs is for federal gov to fund state govs and they pass it through
We can afford to do this: we can't afford not to so this
BTW Federal gov issues Australian currency - the only place in the world to do this.
What we want: what are the types of jobs and services that LG would be able to get going if this funding was in place?
We will lobby gov and liaise with groups such as GetUp
A separate but supportive initiative
......
I think she thought I was an ldealist / naive / ... but we did discuss how things would work if their was funding available.
They don't have this sort of data at the moment - they are trying to get figures etc based on what is available.
She did admit she was at the coalface and found it hard enough - she also said this would apply to many people in councils as well.
I told here I would take that on notice but someone had to ask the hypotheticals or nothing would ever happen.
I'm pretty sure she wasn't 'of the right', and she lied the Outcomes part of the notes - both Economic and Social.
One thing that she mentioned and I didn't have in my notes but hadn't mentioned was that a one-off funding was a waste - it would have to be sustained and locked in for at least a decade.
This was exactly what I had though, and I took her comment as showing she was at least listening.
It is something to consider if we approached councils though - they are again at the coalface and finding THAT hard enough without 'flights of fancy'.
In larger councils, this would be handled by a manager or Director of Community Services, or similar title. In similar councils it might be handled by the GM directly.
They all have a Community Services strategy document, probably on a web site. This would be a starting point for what they think they can achieve with current funding, so it might be a base for future discussions with them.
Councils in NSW that are not amalgamating will be working on their latest version over the next 3-4 months, so it is topical for them.
She has agreed to keep in touch and will send some data to me soon. We also discussed another hot topic of mine which is mentoring and networking of staff in trade waste sections of councils. She saw great merit it that and we will continue to discuss what can be done and whether LGNSW could/should take a role in it in future.
All in all, I felt it was worthwhile. I managed to curb any 'free-currency' feverish behaviour and that was good practice too
I took from this the obvious benefit for those employed but also working on promoting the job guarantee as a bit of a trojan horse for MMT - which is why Iain and Tim formed the party I guess.
We discussed 'local action' and that we cold all approach our local council and find out what sort of jobs they could create if they had funding.
This was to dispel the perception that all JG jobs would be moving dirt, or even just moving holes around.
I thought about it for a few days - who could I approach at our local council - Central Coast NSW - which is also going through an amalgamation.
Then I realised that my company had recently been a sponsor at a conference held by LGNSW - see lgnsw.org.au - they represent all NSW councils.
So I searched their site and found they are working on this NSW local government workforce strategy 2016-2020.
I had a meeting this week with one of the team putting this together.
Here are the notes I made before the meeting:
Local government is a big employer.
Can make positions available quickly if it has funding
Believe that 100% employment is a need.
Productivity. Gives people dignity and purpose.
Hypothetical:
LG can get whatever it takes to meet local needs for local services
Nationally eg $1B creating jobs @ say $40k = 25k jobs
NSW 32% = 8000 or 62 per average council
What additional services could be provided?
What services could be extended?
How much employment would this create?
Outcome
Economic
62 * $40k = $2.5M into the community
say 2/3 spend in the community - shops, trades,...
say 1/2 of that spent in turn by shopowners, tradies,... so 1/3
thats $5M increase in the local GDP
thats $2B increase in the natinal GDP
Social
62 people (8000) with more dignity and purpose, less stress
62 people (8000) not looking for jobs that aren't there, feeling useless. homeless?
Better businesses locally, reducing downturn, rate of depressions and suicide.
All it needs is for federal gov to fund state govs and they pass it through
We can afford to do this: we can't afford not to so this
BTW Federal gov issues Australian currency - the only place in the world to do this.
What we want: what are the types of jobs and services that LG would be able to get going if this funding was in place?
We will lobby gov and liaise with groups such as GetUp
A separate but supportive initiative
......
I think she thought I was an ldealist / naive / ... but we did discuss how things would work if their was funding available.
They don't have this sort of data at the moment - they are trying to get figures etc based on what is available.
She did admit she was at the coalface and found it hard enough - she also said this would apply to many people in councils as well.
I told here I would take that on notice but someone had to ask the hypotheticals or nothing would ever happen.
I'm pretty sure she wasn't 'of the right', and she lied the Outcomes part of the notes - both Economic and Social.
One thing that she mentioned and I didn't have in my notes but hadn't mentioned was that a one-off funding was a waste - it would have to be sustained and locked in for at least a decade.
This was exactly what I had though, and I took her comment as showing she was at least listening.
It is something to consider if we approached councils though - they are again at the coalface and finding THAT hard enough without 'flights of fancy'.
In larger councils, this would be handled by a manager or Director of Community Services, or similar title. In similar councils it might be handled by the GM directly.
They all have a Community Services strategy document, probably on a web site. This would be a starting point for what they think they can achieve with current funding, so it might be a base for future discussions with them.
Councils in NSW that are not amalgamating will be working on their latest version over the next 3-4 months, so it is topical for them.
She has agreed to keep in touch and will send some data to me soon. We also discussed another hot topic of mine which is mentoring and networking of staff in trade waste sections of councils. She saw great merit it that and we will continue to discuss what can be done and whether LGNSW could/should take a role in it in future.
All in all, I felt it was worthwhile. I managed to curb any 'free-currency' feverish behaviour and that was good practice too
