Chapter 6: The Values and workplace relations
Work–life balance
Section 10(1)(j) of the PS Act provides for APS workplaces that are fair, flexible, safe and rewarding. Agency heads are required to put in place measures directed at ensuring that employment and workplace arrangements take appropriate account of APS employees who are seeking to balance individual needs and the achievement of organisational goals.13 These measures are designed to facilitate APS employees’ attainment of a ‘work–life balance’. The value of these measures for maintaining and improving the organisational capability of the APS, through the attraction and retention of skilled and experienced employees, is considered in the MAC report on organisational renewal, which was released in April 2003.
The form and content of work–life balance measures in the APS vary among agencies, although some measures, such as part-time work, purchased leave and flexible working hours, are well established across the Service. The distribution of caring responsibilities also varies significantly among agencies. In this year’s employee survey, hours worked in excess of standard or agreed hours and supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices were used as indicators of work–life balance.
Carer responsibilities
Drawing on responses to the employee survey, Table 6.4 illustrates that the distribution of carer responsibilities across the 21 large agencies with statistically valid results is quite uneven, varying from 48% of employees having caring responsibilities (BOM) to 22% (DEH). The table breaks down total caring responsibilities (column 2) into types of caring responsibilities—caring for children under 5, children aged between 5 and 16 and aged parents (see the notes under the table for an explanation of why the percentages do not add up across the table).
The table also sets out unscheduled absenteeism (column 6), expressed as days per employee (encompassing sick and carer’s leave, workers compensation and various types of miscellaneous leave), for the 21 large agencies with statistically valid employee survey results. These absence rates were calculated by the ANAO in Audit Report No. 52, 2002–03, Absence Management in the Australian Public Service.
Table 6.4 shows some relationship between carer responsibilities and rates of unscheduled absenteeism. Of the five agencies with the lowest rates of unscheduled absenteeism, four are amongst those with the lowest reported rates of carer responsibilities (curiously, the other is the agency with the highest rate of carer responsibilities). Conversely, of the five agencies with the highest rates of unscheduled absenteeism, three are amongst those with the highest rates of carer responsibilities.
Table 6.4: Carer responsibilities and unscheduled absences
| Agency | % of employees with any carer responsibilities (a) | % of employees with children < 5 y.o. | % of employees with children 5–16 y.o. | % of employees with care of aged | Absenteeism (b) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOM | 48 | 20 | 26 | 3 | 5.96 |
| DFAT | 25 | 3 | 21 | 4 | 6.95 |
| DOTARS | 30 | 7 | 24 | 4 | 7.01 |
| DEST | 25 | 10 | 16 | 1 | 7.92 |
| DEH | 22 | 10 | 11 | 1 | 8.11 |
| DAFF | 37 | 8 | 25 | 9 | 8.38 |
| CRS | 39 | 9 | 23 | 12 | 8.92 |
| ASIC | 27 | 10 | 18 | 0 | 8.94 |
| DIMIA | 33 | 10 | 21 | 5 | 10.16 |
| Defence | 37 | 11 | 28 | 2 | 10.22 |
| ABS | 41 | 15 | 22 | 7 | 10.31 |
| DITR | 38 | 9 | 30 | 3 | 10.95 |
| Health | 38 | 11 | 23 | 4 | 11.03 |
| DEWR | 32 | 8 | 20 | 7 | 11.06 |
| Customs | 42 | 14 | 29 | 5 | 11.26 |
| FaCS | 42 | 18 | 29 | 5 | 12.44 |
| ATSIS | 41 | 11 | 34 | 4 | 13.39 |
| DVA | 28 | 3 | 17 | 5 | 13.59 |
| CSA | 46 | 10 | 26 | 8 | 14.16 |
| ATO | 41 | 12 | 28 | 8 | 15.15 |
| Centrelink | 33 | 7 | 18 | 5 | 15.47 |
| APS average | 36 | 10 | 24 | 5 | 11.9 (mean)(c) 8.9 (median) |
Note: (a) The percentage of employees with any carer responsibilities (column 2) includes employees caring for children aged less than 5, children aged between 5 and 16, those caring for aged parents and those caring for ‘others’. ‘Others’ included caring for children and adults with disabilities and caring for children older than 16. Respondents could select more than one caring category which is one of the reasons why the percentages across columns 3 to 5 do not add up to the per cent in column 2. The other reason is that the ‘other’ category has not been included in this table.
(b) The ANAO survey included 74 APS agencies and 8 statutory authorities.
(c) Average carer responsibilities data for the APS are based on all agencies that participated in the employee survey, not only the large agencies listed in this table.
Source: ANAO Report No. 52, 2002–03, and employee survey.
The ANAO found that the 2001–02 median and mean APS unscheduled absence rates were 8.9 and 11.9 days per employee, compared with a median of 6.8 in the private sector. The report notes that the APS is diverse and there are a range of factors influencing absence rates in individual agencies, but concludes that the wide variation among agencies, and the higher absence rate when compared with the private sector suggest that unscheduled absence is not being managed well by some agencies.
That conclusion is not questioned by these data, but it seems likely that the correlation between rates of unscheduled absences and the reported rates of carer responsibilities, shown in Table 6.4, explains some of the variation in unscheduled absences between agencies. It does suggest that in addressing absenteeism agencies may need to look more closely at the rate and type of carer responsibilities of their employees, as this factor is likely to have some impact on absences. The high levels of satisfaction that APS employees have reported with their supervisor’s support for their use of flexible work practices (see following section) is likely to be linked to use of unscheduled absences i.e. use of carer’s or personal leave for work–life balance reasons. Thus, use of unscheduled absences is not necessarily a negative from a management point of view.
A recent Canadian study of more than 31,000 employees from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors found that ‘family interference’14 with work is positively associated with absenteeism due to childcare problems, and that respondents with high levels of family interference were seven times more likely to miss three or more days of work in a six-month period than those with low levels. Similarly, ‘caregiver strain’ 15 was also positively associated with absenteeism due to elder care problems and physical, mental or emotional fatigue. Those with high levels of caregiver strain were 13 times more likely to miss three or more days in a six-month period due to work–life conflict than their less strained colleagues. The study estimated that the direct costs of absenteeism due to high work–life conflict in Canada are about $3-5 billion per year. It concluded that organisations could substantially reduce absenteeism arising from work–life conflict by making it easier for employees with dependant care responsibilities to vary when and where they work.16 In this context it is worth noting that, while the private sector has significantly lower rates of unscheduled absences, it also has considerably higher levels of part-time work (9.4% in the APS at June 2003 compared with 29% in the labour force generally at May 2003).
The following comments from the employee survey illustrate the issue:
…my current employer is fairly inflexible about part-time work and I have had to use carer’s leave which is now into leave-without-pay carer’s leave.My supervisor is flexible and very amenable to me balancing my work and caring responsibilities as I see fit. I work on a part-time basis…to accommodate some of these responsibilities. I usually carry a positive flex balance of a few hours to help meet varying commitments regarding caring responsibilities. I work extra hours to meet major deadlines and then take flex time/time in lieu following the deadline passing.
Ability to work from home when children are ill would be beneficial. Currently required to take carer’s leave—I lose a day and the agency loses a day’s work.
Home based work should be encouraged for parents with children as it would ensure increased productivity, decrease in carer’s leave or personal leave as parents can make alternative arrangements with the doctor during flexible hours without affecting resources in the workplace…
Satisfaction with supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices
One measure of work–life balance is whether employees are satisfied that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices. Eighty-three per cent of respondents to the employee survey reported being satisfied that their supervisor would give them such support. Satisfaction remained high for employees with carer responsibilities (82%), Indigenous employees (89%) and employees with an ongoing disability (81%).
Satisfaction with supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices was consistent across age groups (around 83% to 86%) except for those over 55, where satisfaction fell to 76% (though only 5% of those over 55 reported dissatisfaction). Reported satisfaction with supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices was more varied across classifications. The average level of satisfaction for APS levels 1–6 was 84%, falling to 79% for ELs, and then sharply to 62% for those in the SES. This is likely to reflect the operational demands of work at the SES level, and is possibly influenced by organisational/cultural perceptions of what it means to be a member of the SES.
Of the 21 large agencies with statistically valid results, there was wide variability in respondent satisfaction that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices, ranging from a low of 66% to a high of 92% (ABS). Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between satisfaction with supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices and perceptions of how effective immediate supervisors are at managing people. Of those who were not satisfied that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices, 38% reported that their immediate supervisor was not effective at managing people. In contrast, only 13% of those who were satisfied that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices perceived their supervisor as ineffective people managers.
While satisfaction with work–life balance across agencies is generally very good, some agencies may need to show active leadership in promoting flexible work practices and encouraging line managers to feel confident in implementing them in appropriate circumstances.
Average hours worked in the last six months
Sixty-two per cent of APS employees reported working more (39%) or significantly more (23%) than their standard or agreed hours in the past six months. These figures are somewhat lower for employees with an ongoing disability (51%) and for those with carer responsibilities (57%) but are still significant. Not surprisingly, the number of employees who report working more or significantly more than their agreed hours increases with classification, with 58% of APS 1–6 to about 76% of both ELs and SES reporting this.
The differential between non-SES and SES employees may be more marked than the figures suggest as SES employees are likely to measure their standard working hours against their peers. The survey was modified for SES employees, who were asked whether they worked more or significantly more than ‘reasonable’ hours, as opposed to ‘standard’ or ‘agreed’ hours.
Of those employees who report being dissatisfied with supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices 49% report working ‘significantly’ more than their standard or agreed hours, well above the average of 23%. This suggests that there is a relationship between perceptions of supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices and reported working hours.
Wooden (2003), using ABS labour force data for August 2002, shows that on average 18.5% of the Australian workforce work more than ‘reasonable’ hours, defined as greater than 48 hours a week.17 Not surprisingly, there is marked variation across occupational categories, with only 8.2% of government administration and defence employees reported to work more than 48 hours per week.18 This is in contrast to the 23% of respondents to the employee survey who reported that they work ‘significantly’ more than their standard or agreed hours. These figures provide an interesting point of comparison, but no firm conclusions can be drawn as the ABS data include all tiers of government employees, and the employee survey did not define the hours that constitute ‘significantly’ more than standard or agreed.
There was marked variability amongst agencies in the percentage of respondents who reported working significantly more than their standard or agreed hours. Of the 21 large agencies with statistically valid results, the proportion of respondents who reported working significantly more than their standard or agreed hours ranged from 14% to 44%. This marked variation is likely to be related, in part, to the classification structure of agencies and the nature of the work (i.e. whether it is responsive or predictable or immediate or long term).
At the APS-wide level there is no clear correlation between working hours and job satisfaction. However, for those agencies at the extremes of the work–life balance there does appear to be a positive correlation with job satisfaction.19 That is, those agencies with significantly higher/lower than average results for both of the work–life balance factors are also likely to have a correspondingly higher/lower than average result for job satisfaction. The ABS, for example, stands out as having the best work–life balance, with considerably better than average results across supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices and hours worked in excess of standard or agreed hours. It has correspondingly positive results for job satisfaction.
Despite there being no straightforward correlation between hours of work and job satisfaction, agencies with large numbers of employees who report working significantly more than their standard or agreed working hours may need to investigate whether there are other organisational/cultural factors contributing to working hours and how workload can be better managed.
13 Commissioner’s Direction 2.11, Values in the Australian Public Service, Values and Conduct, 2002.
14 Family interference occurs when family demands and responsibilities make it more difficult for an employee to fulfil work role responsibilities.
15 There are four types of caregiver strain; emotional, physical, financial and family strain.
16 Duxbury, L, Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the new millennium: a status report, The Sydney Papers, Summer 2003.
17 Wooden, M, ‘Long-hours working and enterprise bargaining’, Agenda, Vol.10, No. 3, 2003, p.266.
18 Ibid.
19 For this analysis a summary index was created from the results of the job satisfaction question in the employee survey. The index ranges from zero (respondent was very dissatisfied with all five of the factors nominated) to 10 (respondent was very satisfied with all five factors).