Rspca $14 Euthanasia Allowance

[_PL_]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/rspcas-euthanasia-allowance-a-perverse-incentive-to-kill-claim-critics-20130930-2unfl.html

An extra $14 paid to RSPCA staff on the days they euthanise animals is providing a "perverse financial incentive to kill" and may be driving up death rates, critics say.

The "euthanasia allowance" is detailed in the RSPCA's enterprise agreement which says it should be paid on each day that appropriately trained and certified employees are required to euthanise animals.

Lawyers for Companion Animals principal Anne Greenaway said even hardened critics of the RSPCA had been shocked by the revelation.

"It's pretty weird, very weird, that for anyone who loves animals that an allowance of $14 is going to compensate for having to put an animal down, particularly when some of them are perfectly healthy," Ms Greenaway said.

Other critics, including Sue Barker of Dog Rescue Newcastle, have described the allowance as "disgusting".

David Kelaher, an ex-union official who exposed the allowance during online debate, says he has represented RSPCA employees in disciplinary matters in the past and that if workers could "swing it" to kill five days a week, they could add $70 per week to their take home pay.

"The median wage was around $35.5K – so presuming you worked a regular 48-week year you could get a 10 per cent salary increase by continually killing," Mr Kelaher said online.

The executive manager of animal care services for RSPCA NSW, Brendon Neilly, rejected the notion the allowance provided a financial reward for the euthanising of animals.

"I think suggesting in any way that this is something that people seek to do for financial gain or otherwise is offensive," he said.

"It is in recognition that it is a difficult job that people undertake, and that people may be paid more for performing any workplace role ... with a qualification attached to it, such as a first aid officer for when they are the nominated go-to person for that particular work."

The allowance was not built into a worker's base salary because those staff members were not necessarily required to use those qualifications every day, he said.

Mr Neilly was unable to say what proportion of staff were qualified "euthanasia technicians", or how often they were required to make use of those qualifications.

"We do have qualified people at most facilities," he said.

Heated online debate over the RSPCA's handling of strays followed a Newcastle Herald article last week about two Jack Russell terrier pups destroyed at the RSPCA's Rutherford shelter despite ongoing negotiations between the shelter and the owner to pay for their release.

The Jack Russell terriers, Rocket and Nikki, were euthanised on Monday last week after being held at the shelter more than 28 days.

Owner Kylie McCrea, of Sawyers Gully, was told the family pets would be held until she had a chance to contact Maitland City Council over the $960 fee but a supervisor made the decision to put the pets down over the weekend.

Mr Neilly said an investigation into all of the circumstances surrounding the dogs' death was continuing, and the findings would be made public, but it appeared that it had been a genuine error.

[minimax]

Being paid allowances for having extra skills or working in dangerous environments etc isn't all that unusual.

In my industry people are paid an allowance when they work with asbestos, or with live electricity. People at the rspca are administering lethal chemicals, that requires a qualification or skill that not everyone has, plus the emotional task of killing animals.

Good on them for providing a token gesture.

[DesertDobes]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/rspcas-euthanasia-allowance-a-perverse-incentive-to-kill-claim-critics-20130930-2unfl.html

An extra $14 paid to RSPCA staff on the days they euthanise animals is providing a "perverse financial incentive to kill" and may be driving up death rates, critics say.

The "euthanasia allowance" is detailed in the RSPCA's enterprise agreement which says it should be paid on each day that appropriately trained and certified employees are required to euthanise animals.

Lawyers for Companion Animals principal Anne Greenaway said even hardened critics of the RSPCA had been shocked by the revelation.

"It's pretty weird, very weird, that for anyone who loves animals that an allowance of $14 is going to compensate for having to put an animal down, particularly when some of them are perfectly healthy," Ms Greenaway said.

Other critics, including Sue Barker of Dog Rescue Newcastle, have described the allowance as "disgusting".

David Kelaher, an ex-union official who exposed the allowance during online debate, says he has represented RSPCA employees in disciplinary matters in the past and that if workers could "swing it" to kill five days a week, they could add $70 per week to their take home pay.

"The median wage was around $35.5K – so presuming you worked a regular 48-week year you could get a 10 per cent salary increase by continually killing," Mr Kelaher said online.

The executive manager of animal care services for RSPCA NSW, Brendon Neilly, rejected the notion the allowance provided a financial reward for the euthanising of animals.

"I think suggesting in any way that this is something that people seek to do for financial gain or otherwise is offensive," he said.

"It is in recognition that it is a difficult job that people undertake, and that people may be paid more for performing any workplace role ... with a qualification attached to it, such as a first aid officer for when they are the nominated go-to person for that particular work."

The allowance was not built into a worker's base salary because those staff members were not necessarily required to use those qualifications every day, he said.

Mr Neilly was unable to say what proportion of staff were qualified "euthanasia technicians", or how often they were required to make use of those qualifications.

"We do have qualified people at most facilities," he said.

Heated online debate over the RSPCA's handling of strays followed a Newcastle Herald article last week about two Jack Russell terrier pups destroyed at the RSPCA's Rutherford shelter despite ongoing negotiations between the shelter and the owner to pay for their release.

The Jack Russell terriers, Rocket and Nikki, were euthanised on Monday last week after being held at the shelter more than 28 days.

Owner Kylie McCrea, of Sawyers Gully, was told the family pets would be held until she had a chance to contact Maitland City Council over the $960 fee but a supervisor made the decision to put the pets down over the weekend.

Mr Neilly said an investigation into all of the circumstances surrounding the dogs' death was continuing, and the findings would be made public, but it appeared that it had been a genuine error.

On one hand it seems very macabre but on the other no one could pay me 35'000 plus 10% to do that so maybe they should just pay those who have to euth a higher salary rather than giving it a special allowance.

[Rebanne]

yeah cause the hands on workers are just such greedy buggers who only care about the money. Saw this on FB and all the stupid idiots making out that people are killing just for the money. To me, who has been there and done that, no amount of extra money makes up for the stress you feel doing that shitful job. It's like danger money, a recognition of how that job is out of the ordinary. I'd have taken it if it was around at the time, would have helped pay for the extra Dr visits I made. But I wouldn't have helped kill just to get it and neither would 99% of people in that position.

[Kobi'sDaisy]

This happens is so many industries, I really dont think its so bad. Aged care get it for working certain shifts, doing things that they may not like to do and it's an appreciation of doing what's needed to be done.

I really don't think it's an incentive at all!

[melzawelza]

I think they definitely need to be paid extra for their skills and extra qualifications, as well as the fact that it's quite a distressing and draining job to do.

I have a big issue with the fact that it is a daily allowance though. To me that really lends itself to corruption (even very good people can do some not-so-nice things when driven by debt or financial insecurity), and we also know that the RSPCA have a terrible culture of killing.

Easy solution is to annualise it over their wage - so they get X amount extra per year recognising their skillset, regardless of whether they have euthanased an animal or not.

Personally, I'd love to see a $14 a day BONUS for staff that have managed to facilitate an adoption at the RSPCA, but can't see that ever happening.

[minimax]

I think they definitely need to be paid extra for their skills and extra qualifications, as well as the fact that it's quite a distressing and draining job to do.

I have a big issue with the fact that it is a daily allowance though. To me that really lends itself to corruption (even very good people can do some not-so-nice things when driven by debt or financial insecurity), and we also know that the RSPCA have a terrible culture of killing.

Easy solution is to annualise it over their wage - so they get X amount extra per year recognising their skillset, regardless of whether they have euthanased an animal or not.

Personally, I'd love to see a $14 a day BONUS for staff that have managed to facilitate an adoption at the RSPCA, but can't see that ever happening.

Usually the daily allowance in enterprise agreements is given instead of a blanket wage increase to save costs. Because they are only getting the extra when they use the "skills", rather than every day.

And really, if the median wage is $35.5k, an extra $14, which isn't always every day, honestly isn't going to lead to a high kill rate unless they are employing sociopaths, in which case they would do it without the $14 allowance.

[Steph M]

I imagine it would be a job with a high turnover, so perhaps an incentive to keep those skilled, experienced employees on board rather than new staff every few months might not be a bad thing.

[casowner]

This has been standard for many places including the SA AWL for YEARS but lets jump on the anti RSPCA bandwaggon again, oh yes I want a job killing animals to make an extra $14 per day FFS what is wrong with people

[Rosetta]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/rspcas-euthanasia-allowance-a-perverse-incentive-to-kill-claim-critics-20130930-2unfl.html

An extra $14 paid to RSPCA staff on the days they euthanise animals is providing a "perverse financial incentive to kill" and may be driving up death rates, critics say.

The "euthanasia allowance" is detailed in the RSPCA's enterprise agreement which says it should be paid on each day that appropriately trained and certified employees are required to euthanise animals.

Lawyers for Companion Animals principal Anne Greenaway said even hardened critics of the RSPCA had been shocked by the revelation.

"It's pretty weird, very weird, that for anyone who loves animals that an allowance of $14 is going to compensate for having to put an animal down, particularly when some of them are perfectly healthy," Ms Greenaway said.

Other critics, including Sue Barker of Dog Rescue Newcastle, have described the allowance as "disgusting".

David Kelaher, an ex-union official who exposed the allowance during online debate, says he has represented RSPCA employees in disciplinary matters in the past and that if workers could "swing it" to kill five days a week, they could add $70 per week to their take home pay.

"The median wage was around $35.5K – so presuming you worked a regular 48-week year you could get a 10 per cent salary increase by continually killing," Mr Kelaher said online.

The executive manager of animal care services for RSPCA NSW, Brendon Neilly, rejected the notion the allowance provided a financial reward for the euthanising of animals.

"I think suggesting in any way that this is something that people seek to do for financial gain or otherwise is offensive," he said.

"It is in recognition that it is a difficult job that people undertake, and that people may be paid more for performing any workplace role ... with a qualification attached to it, such as a first aid officer for when they are the nominated go-to person for that particular work."

The allowance was not built into a worker's base salary because those staff members were not necessarily required to use those qualifications every day, he said.

Mr Neilly was unable to say what proportion of staff were qualified "euthanasia technicians", or how often they were required to make use of those qualifications.

"We do have qualified people at most facilities," he said.

Heated online debate over the RSPCA's handling of strays followed a Newcastle Herald article last week about two Jack Russell terrier pups destroyed at the RSPCA's Rutherford shelter despite ongoing negotiations between the shelter and the owner to pay for their release.

The Jack Russell terriers, Rocket and Nikki, were euthanised on Monday last week after being held at the shelter more than 28 days.

Owner Kylie McCrea, of Sawyers Gully, was told the family pets would be held until she had a chance to contact Maitland City Council over the $960 fee but a supervisor made the decision to put the pets down over the weekend.

Mr Neilly said an investigation into all of the circumstances surrounding the dogs' death was continuing, and the findings would be made public, but it appeared that it had been a genuine error.

You would have to wonder what he really means by that statement. Is he inferring that it has in fact happened in the cases he has represented? Or is he suggesting that by spreading the cases over several days - rather than increasing the "kill" rate - that the allowance can be maximised?

The RSPCA are far from perfect but I doubt whether this practice would be common.

[~Anne~]

Being paid allowances for having extra skills or working in dangerous environments etc isn't all that unusual.

In my industry people are paid an allowance when they work with asbestos, or with live electricity. People at the rspca are administering lethal chemicals, that requires a qualification or skill that not everyone has, plus the emotional task of killing animals.

Good on them for providing a token gesture.

Yep, that was my first thought too.

[casowner]

We had to have an euthanasia license so we were tested by vets so it is a skill and you are handling dangerous chemicals.

Standing in that cold room, with bodies on the floor, on tables, in cat traps with a freezer full of sulo bills with animals dumped in them is not worth any extra money if that is why you do it. Killing dozens and dozens of innocent animals whose only crime was to take a breath because of the irresponsible humans that called themselves owners is one of the hardest jobs in the world. The smell is something that will stay with you forever, the waste of life is heartbreaking, us humans have a lot to answer for in our next life

One thing I am really happy with is that the rescue group that I support through my shop is now going to desex the mother cat of any litters of kittens that they take in and give her back to the owner, that is a true rescue group

Edited October 2, 2013 by behluka

[OSoSwift]

I don't necessarily like the idea. But then again I am suspicious of most things the RSPCA do.

I also think a $14 fee for each animal successfully rehabbed or adopted would be money better spent.

If people need a fee for euthanasia then pay them a slightly higher rate all the time because the stress of doing it does not stop after that day.

[Steph M]

One thing I am really happy with is that the rescue group that I support through my shop is now going to desex the mother cat of any litters of kittens that they take in and give her back to the owner, that is a true rescue group

That's incredible. I love this plan. I hope people take it up! Would love to donate if you'd like to PM me who that is. What a fabulous plan!

[gillbear]

One thing I am really happy with is that the rescue group that I support through my shop is now going to desex the mother cat of any litters of kittens that they take in and give her back to the owner, that is a true rescue group

That's incredible. I love this plan. I hope people take it up! Would love to donate if you'd like to PM me who that is. What a fabulous plan!

One of my local cat care groups does this, they "book in" the litter for vetwork in advance and then the owner picks mum back up. They have an all or none policy so unless the whole litter is handed in then they take wont accept the litter, previously they would find that some of the kittens ended up being given away free undesexed before their appointment. mum is desexed free of charge.

Edited October 2, 2013 by gillbear

[casowner]

One thing I am really happy with is that the rescue group that I support through my shop is now going to desex the mother cat of any litters of kittens that they take in and give her back to the owner, that is a true rescue group

That's incredible. I love this plan. I hope people take it up! Would love to donate if you'd like to PM me who that is. What a fabulous plan!

Not that you have to but here is the link to the announcement

Rescue Cat Desexing

[Steph M]

One thing I am really happy with is that the rescue group that I support through my shop is now going to desex the mother cat of any litters of kittens that they take in and give her back to the owner, that is a true rescue group

That's incredible. I love this plan. I hope people take it up! Would love to donate if you'd like to PM me who that is. What a fabulous plan!

One of my local cat care groups does this, they "book in" the litter for vetwork in advance and then the owner picks mum back up. They have an all or none policy so unless the whole litter is handed in then they take wont accept the litter, previously they would find that some of the kittens ended up being given away free undesexed before their appointment. mum is desexed free of charge.

That's good thinking. Would seem mad to turn it down I guess!

[tdierikx]

NSWAR has a program we call "Pregnant Paws", where we take in pregnant bitches in our local area, whelp and raise the pups (and Mum) to weaning age, then we desex Mum and give her back to the owners free of charge - we then desex and rehome the pups ourselves. That way, we have control over the raising and health of mum and pups, and everyone goes home happy.

T.

[Steve]

Its normal to pay people extra money based on the job they do hard to see why this would be considered any different.