Talent2 sacked/exits Novopay

July 30th, 2014 at 11:48 am by David Farrar

3 News reports:

The Government will take complete control of , with its owners Talent2 exiting as the provider of the education payroll system.

3 News has learned Talent2 will pay a cash settlement worth millions of dollars to the Government.

The control of Novopay will be transferred to a Government-owned entity, and is likely to be renamed.

It follows disagreements between the Government and Talent2 over the Novopay contract.

Talent2 is the Australian company behind the flawed payroll system.

It is also understood all Novopay staff will transfer to the new government entity and there will be no job losses.

The Government will also take control of the software as part of the negotiated settlement.

The overall settlement package is thought to be worth somewhere between $18-22 million.

I think that is a very good outcome, and very pleasing to see a significant settlement in favour of taxpayers.

Tags:

68 Responses to “Talent2 sacked/exits Novopay”

  1. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    The spreadsheets i wrote for Datacom in 1996 (when i was a teachers payroll clerk) that are still being used by novopay will live again with a 3rd organisation :)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Bovver (173 comments) says:

    Another brilliant Labour cockup

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Albert_Ross (298 comments) says:

    I would say it’s a bit soon to be calling this a good outcome. What grounds are there to be confident that this new Government-owned entity – with all the same staff! – will make any better a job of managing the system than the previous controllers did? And what recourse will taxpayers have if they don’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MH (762 comments) says:

    We don’t need no education
    We dont need no overseas pay roll
    No dark sarcasm in the classroom
    MP’s leave them Teachers alone
    Just another brick in the wall.
    All in all they’re just another brick in the wall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    oh god, govt owned?

    IT consultants – triple your asking hourly rate and send your cv in! youll get rich out of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Huevon (222 comments) says:

    Wait! Isn’t Novopay an evil conspiracy by Donkey and the Nasty NACTs against hard-working teachers struggling with kids who don’t eat any breakfast??

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    “The Novopay contract was initially signed off by the Labour Government in 2008. It was subsequently renegotiated by National twice.
    Because of delays in the development of the programme, it was not until August 2012 that Novopay was finally rolled out.”

    Why bovver with the facts?
    ———————————–
    The big spin is going to be Steven Joyce riding in on his big white charger to the rescue of the tax-payers and staff who work in schools. The downside of that is the chagrin of the teacher haters thinking that Joyce is doing something nice for teachers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. aquataur (56 comments) says:

    Hold on before calling it a good outcome – what if, as is rumoured- the Govt has spent $90m on this dog – they get $20m back so have still paid $70m for a lemon. They should have held Talent2 to the fire and made them fix it knowing they would never get another major contract unless they made the system work. the smile on Talent2’s face must be about as big as that on Paul Little’s face when the Govt paid him to buy KiwiRail – another reason why we shouldn’t let dumb officials in the MinEd who don’t have a commercial bone in their spineless jelly like form make any commercial decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    This has the hallmarks of a commercially pragmatic settlement. Both parties no doubt didn’t get everything they wanted and the last thing anyone wanted would have been a protracted legal battle trhought the Courts to resolve – other than lawyers! And I imagine both sides already spent a significant sum on their lawyers. As to Talent2 their reputational damage will pretty significant too so I am not sure how much they are smiling. As to being government owned, I can imagine that National will be looking to sell it off once it is stable and perceived of as having value in the marketplace.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    National announces KiwiPay.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mjw (396 comments) says:

    So Joyce has now nationalised Novopay. What’s next?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    The little timesheet company that couldn’t.

    Bye bye, Fail2.

    I shall remember you as quite possibly the only private enterprise capable of giving Government incompetence a run for its money.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Igotta Numbum (463 comments) says:

    Chris Hipkins should be fronting up to his decisions on Novopay going ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    “I can imagine that National will be looking to sell it off once it is stable and perceived of as having value in the marketplace”

    followed by protesting in the streets! its an asset! think of the grandkids!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    What decisions by Chris Hipkins?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jinky (185 comments) says:

    Good attempt at positive spin by DPF on what has been an unmitigated disaster by both Labour and National over Novopay. As others have said changing ownership and name isn’t going to fix things when the software and employees remain the same!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Igotta Numbum (463 comments) says:

    mikenmild (10,732 comments) says:
    July 30th, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    What decisions by Chris Hipkins?

    The decision to run with Novopay was made by Labour in 2008, and Hipkins was the ministerial adviser to then the minister, Chris Carter. Every time he’s asked about it, he dodges the questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    It is also understood all Novopay staff will transfer to the new government entity and there will be no job losses.

    Really?

    I think Jinky (1.00pm) has it right. On the one hand we have a totally flawed pay system – so bad the Government has had to step in and buy it using taxpayer funds. But apparently the entire staff who were party to this series of cock-ups are all competent / and can stay????

    [gulp]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. KiwiFreckles (4 comments) says:

    As a board of trustees member of a school who has never been able to sign off a single pay as being accurate under Novopay I’m pleased that the government has finally been able to extricate itself from this tangled mess. I’m sure that even though the staff are being transferred initially there will be a day of reckoning for some of the incompetent staff down the track.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So you don’t know if he made any decisions, Igotta? In my experience, ministerial advisers don’t make decisions, they provide advice, and it would be very unusual indeed for a political advisor to have any real input on such a large, technical project.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    But apparently the entire staff who were party to this series of cock-ups are all competent / and can stay????

    Not sure if that is entirely true. A number of Ministry staff who were responsible for the project are no longer employed there. Of course there is no way of knowing that there is direct link between them leaving and their responsibility for Novopay. But there has been a number of changes in that area.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Igotta Numbum (463 comments) says:

    mikenmild (10,733 comments) says:
    July 30th, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    So you don’t know if he made any decisions, Igotta? In my experience, ministerial advisers don’t make decisions, they provide advice, and it would be very unusual indeed for a political advisor to have any real input on such a large, technical project.

    So, the options are:

    a) Hipkins advises “don’t do it, it’s a dog”, but Carter does it anyway, or…
    b) Hipkins advises “yep, let’s run with it, it’s awesome”, and Carter does that.

    Which way do you think it happened? (hint: go do some research, you’ll find the correct answer)
    It’s a monumental cock-up by Labour from top to bottom.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    You think that it’s a binary choice? How about maybe he had nothing to do with the decision at all? I don’t know; you seem to think you know but haven’t put forward any evidence.
    For it to be a ‘monumental cock-up by Labour’ I think you would need to show a bit more, for example that the Minister ignored official advice or otherwise directed the process towards failure. Accepting officials’ recommendations may not be sufficient for your purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    In fact, didn’t the ministerial enquiry conclude that officials had misled Ministers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. 103PapPap (131 comments) says:

    Well, now that the Government has established a ‘company’ to do software development and support, we may as well flick it the IRD re-write too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    One day someone is going to realise the fundamental problem is the complexity of teachers’ collective agreements.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    DPF I think you are a bit premature calling it a good outcome, only time and a clear idea of how many more $M the long suffering tax payer is going to have to contribute to a workable outcome will tell us that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    RightNow

    Here’s a challenge for you. Get one of the teachers’ collective agreements detail which bits you’d get rid of, what bits you’d add and list those things on here. e.g. You might want to get rid of the provisions for leave, the special provisions for those working in the Chatham Islands or suggest new ways of listing salary rates. You might also say how if you were a school board of trustees person it would make things more simple for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    RightNow

    One day someone is going to realise the fundamental problem is the complexity of teachers’ collective agreements.

    But the collective is all about making it easy – one contract to rule them all – oh and 3,000 exceptions because 1 size never fits all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    doggone7

    Plenty of companies pay many more staff than the MOE without major drama. But I get it, lets pretend all teachers are the same (via a collective) and then admit that concept fails by creating an overly complicated payroll allowance system.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    doggone7, that’ll be $500k to prepare a statement of work thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    And for anyone interested, the collective agreements can be found here:
    http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/SchoolEmployment/TeachersPrincipals.aspx

    One example in Primary Teachers collective, Remuneration (just the table of contents):

    Part 3 – Remuneration
    3.1 Approaches to Remuneration Comparability
    3.1.7 Base Scale
    3.2 Additional Units – Attached Teachers
    3.3 Salary on Appointment
    3.4 Previous Relevant Work Experience
    3.5 Childcare Service Credits
    3.6 Progression
    3.7 Progression for Resource Teachers
    3.8 Progression for Speech Language Therapists
    3.9 Salary Maxima
    3.10 Recognised Qualifications
    3.11 Recognition of Improved Qualifications
    3.12 Units
    3.13 Allowances
    3.14 Grandparented Service Increment
    3.15 Higher Duties Allowance – Acting in a Higher Position Other Than Principal
    3.16 Relieving Principal
    3.17 Isolation Allowance
    3.18.1 Staffing Incentive Allowance
    3.18.2 Priority Teacher Supply Allowance
    3.19 Māori Immersion Teaching Allowance (MITA)
    3.20 Special Duties Increment Allowance
    3.21 Bus Controller’s Allowance
    3.22 Normal/Model School Allowance
    3.23 Associate Teacher Allowance
    3.24 Compassionate Grant
    3.25 Payment of Salaries
    3.26 Holiday Pay (Permanent and Long Term Relieving Employees)
    3.27 Part-time Employees
    3.28 Payments for Recruitment, Retention and Responsibility
    3.29 Tutor Teacher Allowance
    3.30 Classroom Release Time
    3.31 Braille or NZ Sign Allowance
    3.32 Leadership Payments
    3.33 Cluster Manager Remuneration
    3.34 Advanced Classroom Expertise Teacher Allowance

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    RightNow

    Just put all teachers onto individual contracts – problem solved – no need to spend $500K for that !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    burt, they could even let the BoT negotiate the contracts directly with the teachers employed at their school. Yeah right!

    They could even let each school engage directly with a payroll provider of their own choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    burt: Plenty of companies pay many more staff than the MOE without major drama. But I get it, lets pretend all teachers are the same (via a collective) …

    Yeah, yeah, and let’s pretend that all teachers are the same and get paid the same and that’s what the collective says. There’ll be some thick people on here who will take that implication from what you said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    RightNow

    Okay you’ve got step one done now tell us which bits you’d get rid of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    doggone7
    “Okay ” – I’ll take that as accepting the price.
    “you’ve got step one done” – the first milestone payment is now overdue.
    “now tell us which bits you’d get rid of.” – sorry mate, you’re on stop credit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Although here’s a freebie. Replace the entire Sick Leave provisions with “teachers shall get up to 5 days paid sick leave per annum” (or even 10 – more than I get but I understand kids spread germs), instead of:

    4.1 Sick Leave

    4.1.1 The employer shall grant sick leave on full pay as set out below. The following sick leave allocation applies to new employees and existing employees as per 4.1.4.

    4.1.2 Minimum entitlement
    An employee who works for the employer for a period of more than six months, or who has service recognised for the purposes of sick leave (as defined in clauses 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) which exceeds six months, shall be entitled to five days sick leave on pay on account of sickness or injury, in each ensuing period of 12 months. Unused sick leave under this provision may be accumulated and used at a later date but the next year’s entitlement cannot be anticipated.

    4.1.3 Additional entitlement
    In addition to the entitlement in 4.1.2, the following sick leave shall be granted:

    Table A
    Period of Service Additional Days for Each Period
    Up to three months 7 days
    Over three months and up to six months 7 days
    Over six months and up to nine months 7 days
    Over nine months and up to five years 5 days
    Over five years and up to ten years 19 days
    Over ten years and up to 20 years 14 days
    Over 20 years and up to 30 years 25 days
    Over 30 years 22 days
    Unused sick leave granted under Table A can be accumulated and used at a later date.
    In exceptional circumstances the employer may grant sick leave with pay in anticipation of future entitlements under Table A, provided that no extension may be granted beyond 106 days. Before approving any such extension the employer shall ensure that any extension complies with any funding arrangements applying to the school.
    4.1.4 Transitional Sick Leave
    An employee who was employed by an employer immediately prior to 1 July 1992 shall have their sick leave calculated on the following basis:
    The employee shall be entitled to the balance of the sick leave on pay that the employee was entitled to as at 30 June 1992 as determined from Table B (which table is taken from the 1992/94 Primary Teachers’ Collective Employment Contract).

    Table B
    Period of Service Aggregated Period for which Sick Leave on Pay may be Granted During Service
    Up to three months 7 days
    Over three months and up to six months 14 days
    Over six months and up to nine months 31 days
    Over nine months and up to five years 46 days
    Over five years and up to ten years 92 days
    Over ten years and up to 20 years 154 days
    Over 20 years and up to 30 years 229 days
    Over 30 years 306 days
    If the balance of sick leave under this clause works out at less than five days per year then the employee shall be entitled to up to five days sick leave on pay per year.
    Once the employee has completed a single period of service in Table B (e.g. over five years and up to 10 years) the sick leave on pay provisions in clause 4.1.2 and clause 4.1.3 shall apply. The employee’s entry point on Table A shall be worked out according to the employee’s years of service (service for this purpose is defined in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).
    Any sick leave entitlement under Table B remaining after the completion of the relevant period of service and any other sick leave entitlements under this agreement shall be accumulated.
    In exceptional circumstances the employer may grant sick leave with pay in anticipation of future entitlements under Table B, provided that no extension may be granted beyond 306 days. Before approving any such extension the employer shall ensure that any extension complies with any funding arrangements applying to the school.
    4.1.5 The provisions of this clause regulate the application of paid sick leave under clauses 4.1 and 4.2:

    Sick leave is to be debited on the basis of days of absence where absence does not exceed five consecutive working days; or
    On the basis of continuous days where the absence exceeds five consecutive working days;
    No deduction will be made for absences of less than two hours;
    Part-time employees shall have sick leave debited only for days normally worked (i.e. ignoring intervening days not worked). Debiting will be on the basis of one full day sick leave for each working day lost provided that where a part-timer is absent for two consecutive working days surrounding a weekend, then one weekend day will be debited in addition to the days normally worked.
    4.1.6 Notwithstanding clause 4.1.1, a short term reliever shall have a sick leave entitlement on the basis of service completed since the last date of permanent employment.

    4.2 Sick Leave – Miscellaneous Provisions

    4.2.1

    For the purposes of this clause “service” in relation to the total period of an employee’s service means full-time employment as a teacher by an education Board, a secondary school Board, a school Board of Trustees, the controlling authority of a technical institute or community college, a free kindergarten association, a college of education, the Department of Education, the Ministry of Education, a university, or an agricultural college; as a teacher in Fiji, the Cook Islands, Tonga, Western Samoa or Niue and active military service. Paid study leave is counted for service purposes. Part-time teaching service is assessed on the basis that 80 hours equal one month’s service or 1,000 hours equal one year’s service and so on for periods in excess of this. Where part-time service consists of 20 or more class contact hours per week it may be credited as full-time service.
    Clause 4.2.1 (i) shall apply to SLTs on the basis that no SLT covered by this agreement or any previous Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement shall have their service prior to this date recalculated as a result of the operation of this clause.
    4.2.2 Service does not include study time either before entry into the education service or during the period of unemployment, teaching in private schools (except for teachers in state integrated schools), teaching overseas (except in the Pacific countries listed in 4.2.1).

    4.2.3 The employer shall grant up to 20 days per annum sick leave with pay, as a charge against the employee’s sick leave, in accordance with this clause when the employee is absent from work to attend a member of her or his household who, through illness, is dependent upon the employee. The employer may grant additional paid leave as a charge against the employee’s sick leave in accordance with this clause. For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that members of the employee’s household include the employee’s spouse or partner, children, grandchildren, parents or any relative or person who is demonstrated to have a dependency on the employee.

    4.2.4 When in excess of five days sick leave is taken by the employee, for reasons of their own sickness or injury or to care for a member of the employee’s household as provided for in 4.2.3, a current medical certificate from a registered medical or dental practitioner must be produced if the employer so requires.

    4.2.5 Disregarded sick leave not exceeding an overall aggregate of two years shall be granted by the Secretary in the following circumstances:

    The sickness can be traced directly to the conditions or circumstances under which the employee is working; or
    The injury was suffered by the employee in the discharge of duties through no fault of the employee; and in circumstances where payment has not been made by the Accident Compensation Corporation; or
    In the opinion of the Secretary, the absence was due to war injury or to war service; or
    The absence was due to the employee contracting a disease which, in the opinion of the Secretary, was for the time being epidemic, or by reason of the employee being in contact with a person suffering from such a disease and being required to undergo a period of isolation in accordance with a decision made under regulations administered by the Health Department. In the case of hepatitis, however, the period the disregarded sick leave is the time that the employee’s doctor decides is necessary for the employee to remain away from school.
    Any employer who grants disregarded sick leave without first receiving written concurrence from the Secretary shall be liable for the payment.
    4.2.6 An employer may grant an employee who contracts tuberculosis disregarded sick leave with full salary for a period of up to six months in addition to any period of leave of absence on account of sickness or injury to which the employee is entitled with full salary in accordance with the scale set out in clause 4.1 above if the employee enters, or is placed on a waiting list for entry to a recognised institution.

    4.2.7 Notwithstanding 4.2.6 above, holders of long term relieving appointments and employees available for and eligible for future permanent appointments shall only be granted disregarded sick leave, as provided for in 4.2.5 above, where they have been in continuous employment before the date of application and have been medically examined before entry into the teaching service.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    Is it an outcome or is it, more simply, some commercial accountability?

    Re Hipkins, why pin it on him? Even if he was a ministerial advisor, there would have been a government department giving advice to Chris Carter at the time.

    Chris always followed advice, didn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    doggone7

    There’ll be some thick people on here who will take that implication from what you said.

    The “thick people” are the ones who want to pretend the collective is that – a collective. It’s not. It’s a method of ensuring union membership fees get paid while allowances more or less give teachers an individual pay – based on thousands of tweaks and twists of the collective.

    The idiots are the ones who think the collective serves any purpose other than funding the union.

    Perhaps you could explain how it’s so difficult to calculate what a teacher is paid AND claim at the same time the collective and thousands of allowances isn’t the problem here.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Although here’s a freebie. Replace the entire Sick Leave provisions with “teachers shall get up to 5 days paid sick leave per annum” (or even 10 – more than I get but I understand kids spread germs), instead of:

    That is what my contract says.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    RightNow

    Isn’t it lucky we don’t do something so incredibly complicated as say to the “professional” staff we call teachers – your pay is “X”…. imagine the outrage from the unions when they were unable to pay for Labour party advertising….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    What I find most ridiculous here is that for decades most people have acknowledged teachers are underpaid – the union has failed to address this situation entirely. Rather all it has done is complicate the payroll system so severely that it’s almost impossible to work out what to pay a teacher each week.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    burt
    So the collective agreement is just an elaborate plot by union officials to ensure their own employment?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    A freebie, the glory of free market forces at work!

    RightNow : “…Replace the entire Sick Leave provisions with “teachers shall get up to 5 days paid sick leave per annum” …”

    So get rid of the itemised details of sick leave and let boards up and down the country get into legal wrangles on interpretations and ensure school money will be spent on lawyers. Okay that’s a positive start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    doggone7 – “sick leave (and bereavement leave) shall be provided for in accordance with the Holidays Act 2003.”

    Done. No legal wrangles. And it would be an incredibly positive development for schools fiscally.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Because it would be just wrong for a union to bargain for, and get, any entitlements above the statutory minimum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    burt: ” …The idiots are the ones who think the collective serves any purpose other than funding the union…”

    A grand wall of prejudice against unions and ignorance and prejudice about teachers and their attitude to unions, collectively serves the purpose of suggesting that rational discussion is unlikely.

    The statement “… for decades most people have acknowledged teachers are underpaid – the union has failed to address this situation entirely…” proves absolutely you do not know what you are talking about. Meetings and papers my spouse has had over years to do with various negotiations show that.

    If “… it’s almost impossible to work out what to pay a teacher each week….” as you say, teachers would have to answer for that. For that to be the case, the lack of literacy and numeracy in about would be even worse that proclaimed by the deluded regularly on here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    doggone7.
    Many of us nonintellectuals deal with this stuff every day. If we fucked up our staff pay in the way this has our staff would do what the are entirely free to do. find a better employer.
    Same should happen here.

    This was a shameful attempt by the teachers Unions and the Labour Party to remove bulk funding choices from schools and return it all to mission Central in Wellington.
    As we would expect its a dismal failure. Despised by the very people it was supposed to assist.

    Every School should be an enterprise with vendors competing for their wage software. There are some good ones out there.

    Plenty of non state schools operate fine without them.

    Like anything the Govt. does its a failure at a cost to taxpayers.

    Basically another Insis and another 100 million wasted. That buys a few good teachers or is a bit less borrowing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    Viking2: “…This was a shameful attempt by the teachers Unions and the Labour Party to remove bulk funding choices from schools and return it all to mission Central in Wellington…”

    I know there is a view that every teacher should sit down and negotiate their contract/conditions of service with their individual boards.
    Of course given the fact there are the best part of 3000 sites and many thousands of staff there then would be a standard, base contracts as starting points which boards would use so as to not have to start at the beginning with every single aspect with every single employee. Yes a collective agreement. Which means that in every institution the same negotiation is not replicated. Someone at some time decide fit was more economic for that system to be beneficial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    Novopay no longer a ‘dog’ – PM

    After pouring $45 million in to fix Novopay, the teachers’ payroll system is no longer a “dog” and teachers will be thankful that the Government has taken it over, Prime Minister John Key says.

    Senior Cabinet Minister Steven Joyce, who last year described Novopay as “a dog” today said a Government-owned company would assume management of the system from Australian company Talent2 from October this year.

    He said “pretty good progress” had been made in recent months to fix the system which has been plagued with problems including large numbers of over and under payments to teachers since it was introduced in 2012.

    ======================

    Thats. ironical as I’m at home recovering and have just had friends that I haven’t seen for years. He looks after another institutions computer system and she works at a a school.
    In December 2013 she advised Nova Pay of a change in the hours she will work. (she does the pays). They have continued to overpay her right up until July despite being told.
    Suddenly the have realized and now want the pay back.

    No Mr Key it aint fixed and she had other examples as well.

    This headline should read.
    Key and Joyce suck a Lemon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “This headline should read.
    Key and Joyce suck a Lemon.”

    Or…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Viking2

    Plenty of non state schools operate fine without them.

    But these schools have a lower percentage of teachers in a union. It’s not about the teachers and what they are paid – it’s about the union membership numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (890 comments) says:

    Let us give the contract to Crim DotCon who is a computer genius and Laila Mother Harre can be the project manager….thinkin outside the box fellows….

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Then it could be free !!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. wreck1080 (3,923 comments) says:

    Uhhh, listening to tv1 news tonight — they sheeted blame solely to national.

    But, if i understand correctly, Labour kicked this project off without a proper contract with talent2.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    wreck – “Uhhh, listening to tv1 news tonight — they sheeted blame solely to national.”

    You didn’t really think all the Labour fifth columnists inside TVNZ had gone when Shane Taurima was exposed do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    RightNow is precisely correct. The root cause of this is the complexity of the multiple collectives. Most of the complexity lies in the allowances in the rostering engine. Because its quite elementary to pay people the same very month, that’s simple and every single payroll system has no problem with that no-brainer.

    But education has thousands and thousands of people who are on rostered arrangement with mutiple allowances applying per school. Because many of them work at multiple schools during the pay period.

    Fact is, T2 has a reasonable product, but it has a habit of underbidding to get the contract plus it over-estimated the gains it would make from its user interface which allowed the school administrator to enter the payroll data FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE ROSTERED.

    Datacom who used to have the contract didn’t ever have error-free payrolls, either. But over time they had cobbled together multiple work-arounds like that spreadsheet someone mentioned above and it wasn’t perfect, but it was acceptable.

    But as many of us know, teachers don’t like change. And payrolls are strangely, particularly sensitive to that. For some reason no-one can fathom, people get instantly livid if their pay gets mucked up. The morning after, they don’t seem to hesitate to go and pound the desk of the school administrator before she’s even taken her coat off, for some reason. So you had that hysteria going on. And can you imagine that happening in a school environment full of teachers?

    And politicians being politicians, know a good beat-up when they see it.

    And media being media, are so profoundly fucked in the head they wouldn’t know the difference between a beat-up and a scandal and if it sells their wretched and worthless product, they don’t even seem to care very much, regardless of consequence to the beatee.

    I’m not acquainted enough with the facts to know if that’s what happened – certainly it went live prematurely and once the rot started in the myth dept, it was hard to stop. But if that was what happened then this is a case of perhaps not a good but an adequate IT solution being pilloried in the media by politicians, users and journalists simply because it suited their agenda and an audience which bought into it because they were too dumb or unsophisticated to know they’d been sucked into a vortex of half-truths and outright lies promulgated by bimbo talking-heads who should have stuck to what they’re really good at – discussing breathlessly the latest goings on of Brangelina or Justin Kimberlake (whoever they are).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. doggone7 (808 comments) says:

    Reid: Interesting theories. My observations are about, “The root cause of this is the complexity of the multiple collectives. Most of the complexity lies in the allowances in the rostering engine. Because its quite elementary to pay people the same very month, that’s simple and every single payroll system has no problem with that no-brainer.
    But education has thousands and thousands of people who are on rostered arrangement with mutiple allowances applying per school. Because many of them work at multiple schools during the pay period.”

    In virtually all primary schools “its quite elementary to pay people the same very month [fortnight], that’s simple”.
    There are no rostered arrangements to fiddle with, multi allowances are static and people work on one site. The change that bewildered (still bewilders) people is that in situations where there were no untoward changes except the system as whole being new, were the weird things happening. One random staff member would suddenly not be paid. Someone would be paid $9,000 extra. Someone who hadn’t worked for months or years would get money put into their account.

    You’re right about the media’s role. Maybe teachers were fortunate the Novopay explosion was in a lull after the Christchurch earthquakes and so it got attention when it likely would have been overlooked as an insignificant, in the background matter. When the coverage grew there was the possibility of political damage so it had to be sorted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Tauhei Notts (1,724 comments) says:

    Novopay and their $45,000,000 lemon.
    I have posted on this site a month or so ago;
    The Information Technology industry was created by God to make real estate agents look honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    One day someone is going to realise the fundamental problem is the complexity of teachers’ collective agreements.

    And putting all the teachers on individual contracts will make it soooooooooooooooo much better!

    Spoken like a teacher/union basher who knows absolutely nothing about such things.

    A lot of employers prefer collective agreements, because they don’t have to do anything, and it’s all the same… no mucking around.

    I would agree that the rostering and part-time/relieving etc arrangements present large challenges that aren’t present in other industries/payrolls, however.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. CharlieBrown (1,014 comments) says:

    If joyce is the future successor to key then we are fucked. He is a big government big spending muldoonist. Making another part of government even bigger isn’t the sign of a center right party.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. questions (208 comments) says:

    Just to summarize the suggestions for Mr Joyces benefit:

    The system can’t cope with a handful of different contracts, so we should institute 100,000 different contracts.

    Talent2 hasn’t been able to get the system right in 5 years, so we should institute dozens of vendors serving 1000’s of instances.

    By taking an already complex system, and making it several orders of magnitude more complex, sucess is guaranteed!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    questionsThe system can’t cope with a handful of different contracts, so we should institute 100,000 different contracts.
    Talent2 hasn’t been able to get the system right in 5 years, so we should institute dozens of vendors serving 1000′s of instances.

    You mean, kinda like what every single successful private business out there ACTUALLY DOES?

    People are awesome, they achieve great things every day.

    Are you a public servant? You must have got your low expectations and little faith in people from somewhere.
    You are a negative little loser. I hope you aren’t teaching children.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Griff (7,808 comments) says:

    By taking an already complex Large unwieldy system, and making it several orders of magnitude more fragmented and easily managed, success is guaranteed
    Distributed network one small part fails not significant centralized system one error the whole system goes

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. questions (208 comments) says:

    RRM:
    “You mean, kinda like what every single successful private business out there ACTUALLY DOES?”
    Except Talent2 obviously.

    Griff says:

    “Distributed network one small part fails not significant centralized system one error the whole system goes”

    Yes because pay thats only a little bit wrong is right.

    Neither of you stupid fucks have a clue if you think, given the facts on the table, that another company could pick up and run it next week or even next year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    itstricky (1,571 comments) says:
    July 30th, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    One day someone is going to realise the fundamental problem is the complexity of teachers’ collective agreements.

    And putting all the teachers on individual contracts will make it soooooooooooooooo much better!

    Spoken like a teacher/union basher who knows absolutely nothing about such things.

    Well, the original quote is mine but you’ve conflated other peoples’ responses to base your rebuttal on.

    The implication that you (and some others) are making, though, is that the individual contracts would be as complex as the collective ones. That would just be stupid. The pragmatic approach would be to simplify the collective agreements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Note to lovers of big government and high union membership percentages in the workforce.

    A payroll system does a calculation for each employee – so individual contracts are bread and butter for a payroll system. ( Your pay … that’s kinda what it is all about)

    Having the same base pay and 3,000 potential allowances is way more complicated than a single individually negotiated rate of pay per employee. I know, it’s not what they told you in socialist school 101 classes when they said a collective is better – but they also didn’t tell you that was only to keep union membership numbers high did they ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote