Allowances to be stripped from new entrants only into the Public Service

sarumite · 04-09-2012 11:14pm

woodoo wrote: »

Well then pay them the same as us.

Kind of my point. If the government want to make cuts, they should be applied equally rather than just new recruits.

A Dub in Glasgo · 04-09-2012 11:20pm

There are loads of jobs where people do the same or very similar jobs and they are not on the same salary or conditions of service. I work for the railway in Britain and I had protected rights that were part of my contract when British Rail got privatised (final salary pensions & free travel being the most obvious). I moved job to another railway firm but not one of the privatised firms therfore I lost those entitlements. I am now back within one of the 'BR group of companies' and I am on less benefits than those who kept their entitlements. I may bitch and moan about it but it was my choice therefore I think that new entrants have no justification for looking for parity should this be made plain to them before they are offered the job.

sarumite · 04-09-2012 11:28pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There are loads of jobs where people do the same or very similar jobs and they are not on the same salary or conditions of service. I work for the railway in Britain and I had protected rights that were part of my contract when British Rail got privatised (final salary pensions & free travel being the most obvious). I moved job to another railway firm but not one of the privatised firms therfore I lost those entitlements. I am now back within one of the 'BR group of companies' and I am on less benefits than those who kept their entitlements. I may bitch and moan about it but it was my choice therefore I think that new entrants have no justification for looking for parity should this be made plain to them before they are offered the job.

That may be all true and well, however I am merely questioning the fairness of it. I know it happens. Suspending increment would be unfair to some, paying new entrants less for the same jobs would be unfair to others. If you argue that the former shouldn't happen because it is unfair, I don't see how you can support the idea of the latter happening if you are basing your argument on the idea of 'fairness'.

A Dub in Glasgo · 04-09-2012 11:30pm

I pointed out that it happens in the real world therefore it looks like bitching and moaning

It there is less money to go around, it makes sense to restrict some benefits

itzme · 05-09-2012 1:09am

woodoo wrote: »

Itzme that is the problem with the whole country. Read through any thread and all you will see is cut him not me posts. You are at it yourself.

Can you point me to an example of where I have said as explicitly as you have, don't cut me, cut this other group. Sounds like you are trying to justify a position you have agreed is a bad one to hold.

murphaph · 05-09-2012 8:10am

woodoo wrote: »

I just don't like the idea of reneging on an agreement . My contract was an agreement between me and my employer.

I had a contract with my employer until last week. We were all called in from our department and told that the department would no longer exist and that we are to be made redundant. I'm very lucky in that I have good contacts here and have a new job already but some of my colleagues are not so lucky. They also had a contract with our employer.

This is how it is in the real world. Contracts can be torn up under certain circumstances, such as when the money isn't there to maintain them.

nursextreme · 05-09-2012 8:12am

We could also cut all allowances for new entrants to Social Welfare while leaving those on who are long term unemployed with all the perks.

Allowances being stripped for new entrants to the public service will have no major impact while the recruitment embargo and recruitment pause exists, its really just more spin.
Real reform will only take place when the Chainsaw is unleashed on the Croke Park agreement, if that ever happens.

Jaysoose · 05-09-2012 8:55am

woodoo wrote: »

Sorry jaysoose but your hypocrisy is startling. You wanted increments done away with. It would have had the same result. The older generation of workers on more money than the younger for the same work.

I don't get these allowances btw.

Thats not true,

I never said that increments should be unilaterally cut i made the point that increments were being awarded to staff without any performance management system which has created an environment were staff are being rewarded with payrises for doing exactly the same job wether they work any harder or have improved. The culture of rewarding staff for doing nothing extra should be scrapped, thats very different from removing automatic payrises done away altogether.

Listen i get that you have to defend your position and i can respect that but at some stage we have to accept that their are agreements within the public service that are beyond ridiculous. Ive taken the below text from the CPA itself and it clearly states that in ALL CASES incremental progression should be linked to performance. Its been admitted by the minister in charge that this is not happening and is a clear breach of the agreement. You talk in terms of your contract being in place and it cant be changed but the entire public service is allowed to break this particular agreement?

1.13 The Parties agree that, in order to ensure a high performing, high productivity Public
Service, appropriately skilled personnel from outside the Public Service will be recruited to
secure scarce and needed skills at all levels. Merit-based, competitive promotion policies
will be the norm. There will be significantly improved performance management across all
Public Service areas, with promotion and incremental progression linked in all cases to
performance. Performance management systems will be introduced in all areas of the Public

neil_hosey · 05-09-2012 9:14am

woodoo wrote: »

Well then pay them the same as us.

:rolleyes: yes yes... isnt the whole point of doing this TO SAVE MONEY???

BlaasForRafa · 05-09-2012 2:02pm

woodoo wrote: »

Well then pay them the same as us.

No, pay you the same as them. Its about time public servants copped on and stopped being so selfish and hypocritical.

quad_red · 06-09-2012 3:18pm

woodoo wrote: »

I just don't like the idea of reneging on an agreement . My contract was an agreement between me and my employer.

Your employer is bankrupt.

The ineffective, spineless bureaucracy is piling on staggering debt in order to maintain your unsustainable wages.

You don't feel the need to consider the practical necessity of cutting the PS wage bill because you discount the possibility that you may be vulnerable to losing your job like a private sector worker would.

Allowances to be stripped from new entrants only into the Public Service

Comments