Sustained Response over Public Sector pay cuts: The unions are going to war

nesf

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1213/partnership.html

Looks like January is going to be an interesting month.

Atwork

I wonder will these unions lose many members very soon.

Eliot Rosewater

My father is a member of INTO and disagrees with the action being taken by ICTU. Similarly one of my neighbors said he was "embarrassed" when he was on strike because of the perceived greed of the Unions.

But at the end of the day, when these reluctant people are called up, they will pick up their pickets and protest.

The situation is nearly as much the members fault as the leaders. People are refusing to vote with their feet and part ways with their Union. And the fact is that you are complicit in this mess if you don't leave because you are giving support to those on the top.

Its a hard truth. Some members are too blindly loyal to their Union, and all the rest don't seem to have a problem intimidating them at a picket line if they do decide to leave.

BrianD3

"The unions are going to war", this sounds like a headline that the gutter press would come up with. It's not helpful and will wind people in the same way that the Irish Examiner's "treason" allegations did.

Dannyboy83

BrianD3 wrote: »

"The unions are going to war", this sounds like a headline that the gutter press would come up with. It's not helpful and will wind people in the same way that the Irish Examiner's "treason" allegations did.

They use similar headlines for the government tho.

And the opposition bodies are not exactly innocent of it either, See DonegalFella's recent post about the cuts:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055766382
Women's groups say the government has "catapulted children into poverty" by cutting €16 a month off the €166 child benefit, even though this merely returns child benefit to 2006 levels and deflation is at 6.5% anyway

doc_17

As a member of a public sector union I don't think there will be another strike as there isn't the appetite for it. However that's not to say there isn't anger. Much more likely to be some form of work to rule, for example no more parent teacher meetings outside of school time etc. I'm not advocating this so don't be attacking me!! It's just my opinon on what that "sustained action" will be.

Sand

The unions cant engage in all out strikes because their members have mortgages to pay, and if they lose pay, they lose their homes.

If the unions wont engage with the required cutbacks, then force them through. Always leave the door open, but if unions insist on sulking fine. The world wont stop turning just because they want to get off.

The government will need to halve the public sector and social welfare costs: the simplest, crudest fashion which does not require union agreement is plain out cuts in pay. The better way is to reform expenses, work practices, systems and so on to squeeze out waste and allow redeployment from overstaffed areas to understaffed areas. Look at the reported 2 billion figure in fraud in the social welfare - if the unions came up with suggestions that saved even a fraction of that, theres savings the government doesnt have to make in simple paycuts. And now is the time to implement those reforms so the government can see and account for those savings before next year's budgets and doesnt have to rely on simple "hope".

But if the unions arent convinced by that, then by all means bring it on. You shouldnt fight battles you cant win, and given the undisputed need for cuts in public spending I really hope the unions try to fight this battle tooth and nail. Their corrupt influence over the state needs to be broken.

c montgomery

nesf wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1213/partnership.html

Looks like January is going to be an interesting month.

Hopefully they go on strike and save the government some more money.

They have very little public support as it is and they would have even less if this were to go ahead.

Union leaders are pushing their own mandate without going to the members to see what the common conscientious is. Of course nobody wants a pay cut but maybe many are willing to accept the cut they have been given if it means a halt to this uncertainty and hostility.

I know i have taken a cut in the private sector. This cut was negotiated by my union (siptu), but only after we had to spell out exactly what we would accept to them. They were incredibly negative in the negotiations, hostile and all round difficult to deal with, and they were on our side.

They are speaking complete doublespeak. Saying that the private sector are not taking pay cuts while at the same time negotiating pay cuts for us.

onedoubleo

Oh joy the public sector workers are all going to be opposed to whatever happens but they will blindly follow their union leaders who are all just pissed they got played by the government before the budget.

who_ru

i tend to agree with the last post - this could well indeed be the unions last stand as serious power brokers. Ahern created this monster by positioning them all across the public service, remember McLoone(y) was on the FAS board all the while and knew of a lot of the shall we say 'less than professional goings on' in there but didn't say a damm thing about it.

i think after last week's budget that the penny has dropped collectively and people are now aware of how very serious our situation is and what is required to sort it out. it isn't pleasant and won't be quick but hopefully in 4-5 years time we will as a people be able to look back on this time and say, 'we did the right thing' - and hopefully in 4-5 years time we as a people will also have learned that FF cannot be trusted to run the economy prudently and will have been removed from power for a very long time.

doc_17

onedoubleo wrote: »

Oh joy the public sector workers are all going to be opposed to whatever happens but they will blindly follow their union leaders who are all just pissed they got played by the government before the budget.

I don't subscribe to this notion that the unions got played. This idea that cowen is a genius is just rubbish. He was gonna go with the 12 days leave until lenihan and co slapped some sense into him. What sort of a mess would we be in now if that turkey of an idea went ahead?

Thre was an earlier post here that gave out about the unions striking but was wishing for them all the same. I can't make sense out of that. How can you please people who think like that.

gerry28

Atwork wrote: »

I wonder will these unions lose many members very soon.

In my opinion the unions may lose members in the short term out of frustration. But long term people will want to be represented so the unions will survive, they may have to change a little and represent their members better.

If everyone in the PS left their union then the government could do as they please without any fear of repercussion. I'm going to stick with the union for that very reason.

I also think the unions are getting the message from the members that they do not want strikes, but quite a few will probably want some form of protest against the cuts.

Degsy

who_ru wrote: »

we as a people will also have learned that FF cannot be trusted to run the economy prudently and will have been removed from power for a very long time.

This is true..i'm a PS union memeber and within our ranks there's very littel appetite for anymore strikes..they're simply going to hurt members further.
The general consensus is howevere,get these FF gangsters out of power and we can have a serious chance at recovery.

FlutterinBantam

Look, the Unions know that the public won't wear sustained ind. action.

John Q taxpayer now holds the whip hand and won't tolerate already fully sinecured, well paid and well pensioned,well conditioned workers going on strike.

Just won't happen.

Only threat I see on the Ind front is that one Noonan from the Teachers Union, tough piece of gristle that one, and obviously well sandbagged herself against any job losses and loss of income.

What raises a cynical smirk on the Flutt's beak is the thought that Bartholemew Ahearn, who more than most orchestrated this debacle,instead of sitting in the Dáil hanging his head in shame, was flogging his book down in Kerry, while the most important budget in the country's history was debated.

Union members should note this as the people on the top try to lead the country into ruin, your ruin my friends, not their's;)Don't be sucked in.

Stay loose people, see through the rhetoric if the misguided.:cool:

seclachi

BrianD3 wrote: »

"The unions are going to war", this sounds like a headline that the gutter press would come up with. It's not helpful and will wind people in the same way that the Irish Examiner's "treason" allegations did.

Agreed, the mass hysteria surronding all this is getting head wrecking and isnt helpful. What everybody needs is a good dose of my old fella telling them how he had to cycle to school in the pissing rain in his shorts, and when he got home his dinner was drippings and the heel off a loaf of bread.

nesf

And Lenihan raises the stakes by threatening further pay cuts if industrial action causes a worsening of the State's finances: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1213/partnership.html

Yeah, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I saw that the Government and Unions are drawing battle lines right now.

Rev. BlueJeans

onedoubleo wrote: »

Oh joy the public sector workers are all going to be opposed to whatever happens but they will blindly follow their union leaders who are all just pissed they got played by the government before the budget.

No they won't.

There are some intelligent and reasoned people in the PS. It is a big group, and they don't all have their heads in the clouds or are caught up in their own interests.

johngalway

I hope they do strike, nothing against their membership to be honest, as they're mostly just ordinary little folks like me! But fcuk me pink, am I ever fed up of hearing and seeing the likes of I'm alright Jack O'Connor, David make Beggers of us all and worst of all Liam you can't make up a nickname for me can you Doran. Time for a bit of precision chainsaw surgery by the Government if they go out. I was also utterly disgusted when I heard about threats being made against students sitting mock exams, for fcuks sake what did kids ever do to get us here, bloody shameless. Lock the doors and leave'em out.

mikemac

I don't see extended strikes happening. People can't afford to lose a day or days pay. Work to rule will probably be the tactic used.

Some unions have millions in reserves which can fund strike pay but not all unions have this. So if you go on strike you better be sure you can succeed as there may be no strikepay at all.

onedoubleo

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

No they won't.

There are some intelligent and reasoned people in the PS. It is a big group, and they don't all have their heads in the clouds or are caught up in their own interests.

I agree there are a lot of intelligent people working and they do not want to see strike and hopefully they will elect some new union bosses or show when balloted that they don't agree. Until then we have to assume that the unions will continue the action.

gandalf

As I said in another thread that was about this subject let them strike, break them. If there is a work to rule and some members of the PS do not carry out their jobs to the letter start to fire them.

hmmm

What are they going to strike for? Reversal of the pay cuts? No government is going to reverse public sector pay cuts and hike up private sector taxes or cut social welfare further. This talk of strikes is a nonsense, the unions have had their bluff called and they lost. What they should be focussing on now is budget 2011.

gandalf

hmmm I have a feeling the government want the unions to strike as the backlash of public opinion against the unions will give them carte blanch ability to push through wide ranging and long overdue reforms of the PS.

PLIIM

I dont blame them to be honest.
They didnt do anything but moan a little bit, like it was a pin prick after the pension levy.
So they were hit on their own again this time.
If they stay quiet and take it this time, then we know it still hasnt hurt them, so we should take more again from them next time.
Keep going back until they scream with the pain. Then we know it hurt them.

Rev. BlueJeans

onedoubleo wrote: »

I agree there are a lot of intelligent people working and they do not want to see strike and hopefully they will elect some new union bosses or show when balloted that they don't agree. Until then we have to assume that the unions will continue the action.

The beards certainly seem to be talking up these actions anyway.

As, to his credit, and for his part, is Garlic.

gerry28

PLIIM wrote: »

I dont blame them to be honest.
They didnt do anything but moan a little bit, like it was a pin prick after the pension levy.
So they were hit on their own again this time.
If they stay quiet and take it this time, then we know it still hasnt hurt them, so we should take more again from them next time.
Keep going back until they scream with the pain. Then we know it hurt them.

What? I tried to make sense of this but i couldn't.

mikemac

PLIIM wrote: »

I dont blame them to be honest.
They didnt do anything but moan a little bit, like it was a pin prick after the pension levy.
So they were hit on their own again this time.
If they stay quiet and take it this time, then we know it still hasnt hurt them, so we should take more again from them next time.
Keep going back until they scream with the pain. Then we know it hurt them.

Like nobody else wasn't hit in the last budget in 2008...... That levy on my private sector payslip must be imagined so. But I'll pay it and so be it. Just don't claim the public service are on their own.

Are you saying the Public service should stage such incredible demonstrations that the government will be afraid to impose cuts on them again? A bit like the pensioners did already?

nesf

I find it amusing that McLoone described Lenihan's comments as highly provocative. I mean, it was a response to the unions stating they'll wage a campaign of non-cooperation with reforms which of course wasn't at all provocative. It's like two countries building up armies on both sides of a border each accusing the other of being provocative.

killbillvol2

gandalf wrote: »

As I said in another thread that was about this subject let them strike, break them. If there is a work to rule and some members of the PS do not carry out their jobs to the letter start to fire them.

You obviously don't understand what a "work to rule" is. It means carrying out your job to the letter and nothing extra.

There's nowhere near the appetite for industrial action that the union leaders would have people believe. A lot of public servants (including me) are pissed off at being hit in the pocket again. But a lot of us can see that the country is deep in ****e so we'll take the pain this time.

There will also be considerable unrest with the leadership within the unions when they go back to the members. They sought a mandate for strike action and then chickened out. Not only that but they went into negotiations on a pay cut (called it unpaid leave) and changes to conditions of service without any mandate from the rank and file. When people calm down in the next couple of weeks they'll realise that they're being very poorly represented.

mad m

If there will be any strikes, it will only be a day here and a day there...Unions don't want to pay union members strike money. Also the last strike (Untie union )payed its members for the one day action....It was only a percentage (€35).....

RealityCheck

mad m wrote: »

If there will be any strikes, it will only be a day here and a day there...Unions don't want to pay union members strike money. Also the last strike (Untie union )payed its members for the one day action....It was only a percentage (€35).....

They have already ruled that out. It will be work to rule. Nurses not answering phones and the like.

gandalf

killbillvol2 wrote: »

You obviously don't understand what a "work to rule" is. It means carrying out your job to the letter and nothing extra.

Oh I understand what it is but there will be those who will carry on their standard daily work of doing nothing. Remove those if that is the way they act. Work to rule might actually get a decent days work out of the dead wood if they think that they will be dealt with for not carrying out their prescribed duties.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

who_ru

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you have heard of bank recapitalisation to the tune of billions i presume and that other thing cost 54 billion, what's its again, oh yeah NAMA!

not to mention the scandalous waste all across Govt Depts. Decentralisation etc - no point in trying to tackle that i suppose lets just cut the dole and a straight cut in child benefit and not a targeted one so that the less well off keep theirs but the people who never should of got it in the first place take a cut. ah well lets cut that welfare coz Anglo & AIB are going to require billions in 2010 from................you've gussed it US the Taxpayer and that's a fact but of course Brian Sledgehammer Lenihan failed to mention that in his budget speech.

and he blatantly lied when he said all Govt ministers were taking a 15% cut when in fact it is only a 5% cut. yeah it's some country alright.

Bandit12

Fair play to the unions.I hope there is wide spread stoppages next month and the goverment back down on their disgraceful budget.

FlutterinBantam

killbillvol2 wrote: »

You obviously don't understand what a "work to rule" is. It means carrying out your job to the letter and nothing extra.

There's nowhere near the appetite for industrial action that the union leaders would have people believe. A lot of public servants (including me) are pissed off at being hit in the pocket again. But a lot of us can see that the country is deep in ****e so we'll take the pain this time.

There will also be considerable unrest with the leadership within the unions when they go back to the members. They sought a mandate for strike action and then chickened out. Not only that but they went into negotiations on a pay cut (called it unpaid leave) and changes to conditions of service without any mandate from the rank and file. When people calm down in the next couple of weeks they'll realise that they're being very poorly represented.

Work to rule works both ways, or didn't you know:cool:

FlutterinBantam

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely, time to see some sense now and stop listening to whinging and crying of well paid and well pensioned practically unsackable people who are led by people who don't seem to give jack Schidt about the countries situation as long as their members continue to be paid inflated wages and conditions, while the pvt. sector has to pay it's way of lose their jobs.

At long last we seem to have seen through these jerks.

imme

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Look, the Unions know that the public won't wear sustained ind. action.

John Q taxpayer now holds the whip hand and won't tolerate already fully sinecured, well paid and well pensioned,well conditioned workers going on strike.

Just won't happen.

Only threat I see on the Ind front is that one Noonan from the Teachers Union, tough piece of gristle that one, and obviously well sandbagged herself against any job losses and loss of income.

What raises a cynical smirk on the Flutt's beak is the thought that Bartholemew Ahearn, who more than most orchestrated this debacle,instead of sitting in the Dáil hanging his head in shame, was flogging his book down in Kerry, while the most important budget in the country's history was debated.

Union members should note this as the people on the top try to lead the country into ruin, your ruin my friends, not their's;)Don't be sucked in.

Stay loose people, see through the rhetoric if the misguided.:cool:

"tough piece of gristle", is there a need for namecalling, talking about the personality of the union leader?
I have heard Sheila Nunan (it's Nunan, not Noonan btw) a few times on TV/radio. She comes across as sincere and direct.

FlutterinBantam

We will have to disagree on the personality issue, please lets not get too po faced about my description as that's what it is, not name calling.

Thanks for the correction on the name, appreciate that.

I like to get things right.

brianthebard

gandalf wrote: »

hmmm I have a feeling the government want the unions to strike as the backlash of public opinion against the unions will give them carte blanch ability to push through wide ranging and long overdue reforms of the PS.

Reform proposals were put forward by the Union representatives before the budget and were rejected by the government.

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

Reform proposals were put forward by the Union representatives before the budget and were rejected by the government.

Brian, too many years of promising reform means nobody believes the unions it will be delivered in a real and meaningful way. We don't trust your unions and the reforms should be delivered regardless. Why must you always look for something in return for reforms (changes and streamlining in work practices are taken for granted in the private sector. If you don't cooperate with more efficient practices you'll be sacked for misconduct).

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

Brian, too many years of promising reform means nobody believes the unions it will be delivered in a real and meaningful way. We don't trust your unions and the reforms should be delivered regardless. Why must you always look for something in return for reforms (changes and streamlining in work practices are taken for granted in the private sector. If you don't cooperate with more efficient practices you'll be sacked for misconduct).

The reforms should be delivered regardless of whether the unions suggest them or not? That doesn't make sense. The government also promises many reforms and hasn't delivered, do you also apply the above logic to them? If so then what? Plans were put on the table from the unions and were ready to be implemented before the government rejected them, it is not the unoins that blocked reform here. It is not the unions but the government that is looking to renege on contractual obligations at the minute.

Why do unions look for something in return? Because their purpose is to work on behalf of their members to maintain and improve their working conditions, I don't know why I even have to say that. I think most of the people who complain about unions here are non unionised and thus subconsciously (or perhaps consciously) jealous of the protection ensured by trade unions.

Sleepy

To follow the war analogy I'd like to quote Napolean Bonaparte:

March without the people and you march into the night.

If the union leaders call a strike without further balloting of their members they'll find themselves standing alone, micturating against the prevailing movements of air.

Dannyboy83

Sleepy wrote: »

To follow the war analogy I'd like to quote Napolean Bonaparte:

I'll quote a more modern Frenchman, Sarkozy:

"The Street aren't elected to govern the country, it is the government who are elected to govern the country"

killbillvol2

Sleepy wrote: »

To follow the war analogy I'd like to quote Napolean Bonaparte:



If the union leaders call a strike without further balloting of their members they'll find themselves standing alone, micturating against the prevailing movements of air.

Nice word!

funnyname

Do the unions not have to put it to a vote for strike action? If they did surely they wouldn't get enough of a mandate for a strike as I think the majority of the PS workers although are unhappy to receive a pay cut, they understand that it was necessary.

RedPlanet

Is there any transparency for when they do ballot their members?

bobbyjoe

RedPlanet wrote: »

Is there any transparency for when they do ballot their members?

Its usually done by an outside accountancy firm.

imme

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I like to get things right.

good for you;)

imme

RedPlanet wrote: »

Is there any transparency for when they do ballot their members?

are you saying they'd rig a ballot?

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

The reforms should be delivered regardless of whether the unions suggest them or not? That doesn't make sense.

Why not, if the reforms make sense they make sense.

brianthebard wrote: »

The government also promises many reforms and hasn't delivered, do you also apply the above logic to them? If so then what?

The government can be removed by the people and most probably will be.

brianthebard wrote: »

Plans were put on the table from the unions and were ready to be implemented before the government rejected them, it is not the unoins that blocked reform here. It is not the unions but the government that is looking to renege on contractual obligations at the minute.

If the unions proposed some good ideas for reform then the government should now move to implement these reforms, right?

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do unions look for something in return? Because their purpose is to work on behalf of their members to maintain and improve their working conditions, I don't know why I even have to say that. I think most of the people who complain about unions here are non unionised and thus subconsciously (or perhaps consciously) jealous of the protection ensured by trade unions.

I wasn't actually adressing the unions there, more a direct question to you, why do you personally feel entitled to something in return for doing your job a bit differently, not even likely to be any harder? It's the absolute norm outside the public sector to change and adapt as required.