the Workplace Justice Consortium

Fundamentally I think we want to believe in government and that its highest officers govern with integrity and transparency. And yes, at times we can be disappointed. The furore involving the Directorate of Public Prosecutions is a timely reminder about the demanding  importance of doing and appearing to do the right thing, in every instance. 

I do not profess to know any of the specific circumstances surrounding the very regrettable situation facing the DPP, Jeremy Rapke and his staff. And of course, if I were professionally involved in any way in mediating this dispute, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment. So for what its worth this case invokes a number of tantalising yet potentially unfair and unfounded conspiracy theories vis a vis merit based selection, the application of EEO principles, workplace culture and the challenges thrown up by good old human nature. Some of those would be:

Scenario One

The woman at the centre of the storm, Diana Karamikov is a seriously talented solicitor and is being recognised for that alone. Old fuddy duddies intent on preserving the best traditions of seniority (or plain old jealousy) are throwing a vitriolic tantrum and getting rewarded with lots of attention for it. In this scenario protesting staffers would appear petty and age-ist. Only yesterday I met a talented lawyer who told me she was promoted to senior litigator and partner in a national firm in her late 20′s.

Scenario Two

Parties have behaved inappropriately and are getting their just desserts if power and authority have been abused potentially resulting in dinted reputations, and diminished morale and confidence in governmental leadership by staffers and the public.

Scenario Three

Independent of any exercise of poor judgment or otherwise, parties have seized on the opportunity to discredit the Director, the Office of Public Prosecutions which would arguably have a number of enemies and/or the government in the weeks before a state election. The fact that a senior staffer resigned over it some weeks ago doesn’t automatically invalidate the justness of an appointment and refute the possibility of Scenario One.  Conversely the possibility of any friendship between the “appointer” and the “appointee” does not automatically render the appointment a perversion of natural justice for other candidates. We do know all 7 candidate recommendations were independently scrutinised by a panel convened by the Attorney General Rob Hulls and all passed muster.

In Conclusion

Government must continue to be accountable for all its decisions but the ability of individuals and the media at large to monster those responsible for such decisions and cast such aspersions on character so easily and so readily in the absence of any real evidence presented thus far would rattle even the most resilient.  

It is a relief to hear there has been a reported rapprochement between two of the senior players to this regrettable saga today because we have long since known that a working relationship is the minimum condition of success in any high performing team and the work done by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions is vital to the wellbeing of our citizens and the preservation of our democracy.

In my fifteen year career in workplace justice issues I have not seen anything like the frenzy surrounding the DJ’s sexual harassment scandal. And it’s clear based on further developments in the Federal Court today that it is not going to go away quietly. Raising the spectre today of many more potential claimants, this could get settled out of court quickly or go on for years. One thing though can be seen as a positive in a situation where grievances like this take no prisoners. If it gets other organisations huddling around the board room water cooler contemplating their culture, their brand,  the ethics of their leadership and road testing their policies, Fraser Kirk’s fight will have achived something positive.

Putting aside the impassioned public discourse on paid parental leave itself which at times seems unbelievably aggressive, cynical or bitter, I struggle to understand the following:

Why should paid parental leave be accessed by mothers only?

Should it not be the choice of the couple as to who stays home based on preference and economics? And why judge them for that choice?

One hears some people at work referring to part timers’ days at home parenting as a “day off” or worse still a “rest day”? Those saying that appear devoid of empathy, or have clearly never done it or tragically and perhaps narrow-mindedly devalue the importance of stable and dependable love and care for small children that is integral in them becoming productive, decent, law abiding young adults. 

Deciding to have children is a choice, not a sacrifice but feeling compelled to go back to work for fear of being labelled lazy or being discriminated against; all the while bemoaning lost time actively parenting is a sacrifice and I meet a lot of men who are filled with regret.

In an era where we will face such acute skills shortages that won’t be covered by immigration, can we not see the benefit in providing incentives (or removing hardships) so that women will give birth to more children?

Why can’t people agree that it should be a fundamental human right and choice to bring children into the world and the desire to do so does not automatically render parents unambitious or lazy employees?

And when are we going to give men permission to be caring involved visible fathers without being marginalised. Maybe those bitter, cynical bloggers are the ones whose fathers were absent. I suggest they doth protest too much.

I’m a big one for believing that we are truly motivated when we are in danger of losing what we have (the protective drive) or find something so enticing that we can transcend any obstacle to get it (the aspirational drive). Many of my clients (I coach also) complain about the struggle with juggle but can’t find sustained motivation and discipline to moderate behaviour in ways that are consistent with those stated goals. Perhaps it’s really confronting for them to accept that they get more out of their work and career than they do from their life outside work. This of course does not suggest that those dedicated to their careers may not love family members and friends deeply. Nor should ethical organisations exalt those who invest in career to the exclusion of a personal life or pay lip service to work/life balance as surely people have the right to enjoy both.

However I see evidence that some colleagues and clients have achieved a pretty good “flow” because a) they know themselves well b) they are honest about what they really want in life and c) they exercise decision making in line with those priorities and values. Thus they achieve some real balance and are mostly productive and happy in the life they have carved for themselves. It is harder when people have not the education, the intellect, the skills or the personal circumstances to feel so empowered. The myth that we can have it all these days seems to create a lot of disappointment, even depression for people, but if we are prepared to own our choices, set clear and palpable goals and maintain some semblance of discipline consistent with those choices, we can have it most.