What are public sector hoping for?

beeno67

What are the PS striking/working to rule for?

From what I can gather from the Union websites they want a reversal of the recent pay cuts. So for someone on 30K a year they want the 5% pay cut reversed. That means this single worker on 30K will see their income increase from €22,600 back up to €23,548. That is €948 a year or €2.60 a day.


For this they are willing to:

• take some days unpaid leave which would obviously reduce takehome pay and greatly reduce this €2.80 daily gain
• Discuss increasing working day from 9am-5pm to 8am-8pm
• Reduce overtime
• They seem ok with temporary staff loosing their jobs.

Is this really what low paid workers want? Have I misunderstood?
If people could stick to what they want/expect from a successful strike that would be appreciated. I don't want people to go on about how much they have lost, how others are not suffering, how rubbish the government is etc. Just what would a successful outcome be.

zootroid

I would imagine if they were to increase the working day to 8am-8pm, they would only work 4 days a week, for to work 5 days a week would breach the 48 hour maximum working week.

beeno67

zootroid wrote: »

I would imagine if they were to increase the working day to 8am-8pm, they would only work 4 days a week, for to work 5 days a week would breach the 48 hour maximum working week.

Yes of course it does. They are willing to discuss increasing the core working day to 8am-8pm. You still only work 39 hours a week. No extra work is done but you could be working later in evening (or even Saturday) for no extra pay. You would still get overtime if you went over 39 hours a week.

RobbieTheRobber

zootroid wrote: »

I would imagine if they were to increase the working day to 8am-8pm, they would only work 4 days a week, for to work 5 days a week would breach the 48 hour maximum working week.

Not really the current working hours in most non public facing offices are from 8am to 7am but the core day is 9:30 to 5:30, which means the office must be staffed between those hours by increasing the working day we could stagger peopels hours so that there would be greater access to services outside those core hours.

RobbieTheRobber

Anyway OP I for one am not going to tell you what want I want out of fear that I would leave myself open to a tirade of hatred and abuse!

beeno67

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Anyway OP I for one am not going to tell you what want I want out of fear that I would leave myself open to a tirade of hatred and abuse!

But is what you want different from what the unions want. As I said here and on a previous thread last night the unions seem to want a reversal of the pay cuts which would mean an extra €2.60 a day to a single worker on €30K. I am unaware of them looking for more than this for workers (although they have demands for society in general)

My take on this is that if the government gave in and reversed the pay cuts in full (which I think we all know cannot happen) then the union would recommend acceptance and subject to a vote the strike would be over. Do you feel this would not be accepted by the ordinary workers? Are the unions fighting for one thing while the workers want another?

pah

Regarding the working day I would imagine it would be rotated staggered shifts like 8am-4pm, 10am-6pm and 12pm-8pm which I think would provide a better service to the public.

As a PS shift worker I enjoy being able to get things done on midweek when I'm off. I'm sure plenty of office workers would be happy to get jobs done some morning before they start at 12md

Personally I would hope that reform and agreement can be found so that there are no paycuts come December, that the savings can be found elsewhere. Paycut reversal is a bad idea and I don't see it happening. Maybe an agreement that payscales will be revisited in say 5 years or 7 years and that the income levy might be abolished if and when finances are sorted.

beeno67

pah wrote: »

Regarding the working day I would imagine it would be rotated staggered shifts like 8am-4pm, 10am-6pm and 12pm-8pm which I think would provide a better service to the public.

As a PS shift worker I enjoy being able to get things done on midweek when I'm off. I'm sure plenty of office workers would be happy to get jobs done some morning before they start at 12md

Personally I would hope that reform and agreement can be found so that there are no paycuts come December, that the savings can be found elsewhere. Paycut reversal is a bad idea and I don't see it happening. Maybe an agreement that payscales will be revisited in say 5 years or 7 years and that the income levy might be abolished if and when finances are sorted.

I agree with you pah. I don't think the government have any intention of further pay cuts and all you have said would be accepted in the morning by the government. They had strongly hinted after last budget that there would be no further PS pay cuts and only rolled back on this to have a bargaining chip for negotiations.

RobbieTheRobber

beeno67 wrote: »

But is what you want different from what the unions want. As I said here and on a previous thread last night the unions seem to want a reversal of the pay cuts which would mean an extra €2.60 a day to a single worker on €30K. I am unaware of them looking for more than this for workers (although they have demands for society in general)

My take on this is that if the government gave in and reversed the pay cuts in full (which I think we all know cannot happen) then the union would recommend acceptance and subject to a vote the strike would be over. Do you feel this would not be accepted by the ordinary workers? Are the unions fighting for one thing while the workers want another?

The demand for a paycut refersal is a pure bargaining position, as stupid as the unions chiefs may or may not be they could not possibly expect the government to do a u-turn on that.

So its a bargaining position just like when you sell anything you put it on the market at a price higher than you hope to get and begin the work down to realistic prices during negotiations.

deise blue

I think the Government will trade a reversal of the pay cuts over a period of time for reorganisation and reform.

I am also of the opinion that there may very well be a media and public backlash to such an agreement which in effect is why the Government where so quick to involve Kieran Mulvey and the Labour Court so early in discussions to provide a buffer for them much in the way Colm McCarthy was rolled out to recommend unpalatable cuts.

meditraitor

I am of the belief that this round of industrial action is being used to try and prevent further cuts in PS/CS pay;which are inevitable.

The unions know this so they are trying to head the government of at the pass.

There should be further cuts but not at the lower pay rates, the front line staff are being used by the unions to galvanise support for refusing any future pay reductions. Itss the big boys on the big wages holding the strings

ixoy

deise blue wrote: »

I think the Government will trade a reversal of the pay cuts over a period of time for reorganisation and reform.

I am also of the opinion that there may very well be a media and public backlash to such an agreement which in effect is why the Government where so quick to involve Kieran Mulvey and the Labour Court so early in discussions to provide a buffer for them much in the way Colm McCarthy was rolled out to recommend unpalatable cuts.

The McCarthy report wasn't really acted on however. Do the unions believe that their case will be stated better, given that it ultimately called for reductions in numbers?

meditraitor wrote: »

There should be further cuts but not at the lower pay rates, the front line staff are being used by the unions to galvanise support for refusing any future pay reductions. Itss the big boys on the big wages holding the strings

How would the unions argue for this? For example the cuts would presumably be, say in the civil service, for those at AP+ levels. They have their own union (can't recall it offhand) so that would surely lead to union infighting with the likes of the CPSU, or even the PSEU.

Do you think they would try and back up these cuts with figures? It's obvious why the rollback on cuts at the higher level annoys them but I'd imagine there's not all that much to be saved by cutting those on 80k+ back versus more sweeping cuts at all levels.

RobbieTheRobber

ixoy wrote: »

Do you think they would try and back up these cuts with figures? It's obvious why the rollback on cuts at the higher level annoys them but I'd imagine there's not all that much to be saved by cutting those on 80k+ back versus more sweeping cuts at all levels.

Economically your right, there is greater benefit to long term cost saving by cutting the lower paids wages. However creating a majority of unhappy workers is not conducive to creating a more productive work force.

Especially when they rightly feel those at the top have gotten away much ligther than them.

An increase in productivity will not come from the top down but from the bottom up and sadly its at the top where real reform is need in the civil service(Im splitting them away from the whole public service as one entitiy here).

Many of the those at top of the civil service at assistant secratary levels have been involved in the service for decades they are not coming with fresh ideas about how to run the service they are a greater cause of stagnation than those at the bottom who simply do what they are told (apart from during the work to rule).

deise blue

ixoy wrote: »

The McCarthy report wasn't really acted on however. Do the unions believe that their case will be stated better, given that it ultimately called for reductions in numbers?



True , but the Government were quite aware that they could point out that the recommendations contained in the McCarthy report were carried out independently and if the public had misgivings about aspects of the report then that really was outside the Government's bailiwick.

Such may very well be the case if there is agreement on a form of pay reversal which proves unpalatable to some , the Government will merely say that they and the unions made their respective cases to Mr. Mulvey and the best resolution possible was found.

RobbieTheRobber

I want the government to negotiate with its workers to seek a solution not impose a terrible one, which causes disharmony and inevitably reduces productivity.
I want real reform, I was part of the PS when PMDS was brought in and it changed nothing absolutely nothing except maybe make some consultants wealthier.
I want that reform to start at the top and work its way down (PMDS was suppossed to do this and it didn't, not even close.)
I want a gaurantee we wont be picked on first when the next budget comes along in december and I want that gaurantee first, we cant be expected to negotiate with the threat of the axe over our heads again!

Do I expect money back sadly no!

Inquitus

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I want the government to negotiate with its workers to seek a solution not impose a terrible one, which causes disharmony and inevitably reduces productivity.
I want real reform, I was part of the PS when PMDS was brought in and it changed nothing absolutely nothing except maybe make some consultants wealthier.
I want that reform to start at the top and work its way down (PMDS was suppossed to do this and it didn't, not even close.)
I want a gaurantee we wont be picked on first when the next budget comes along in december and I want that gaurantee first, we cant be expected to negotiate with the threat of the axe over our heads again!

Do I expect money back sadly no!

The Government has limited scope for Tax Increases, and on their own they cannot bridge the Budget Deficit.

This leaves 2 main Areas which have to cost less:

Social Welfare
Public Sector Wagebill

Its inevitable that we need to achieve real savings in the PS Wagebill, and will continue to need to do so over the coming years.

This can only be achieved by:

Getting rid of some people and maintaining levels of service via increased efficiencies.
Keeping the same number of employees and paying them less.

The Unions are opposed to both options, yet its clear one, or the other, or a combination of both needs to be done to sort our the countries finances.

We see the same thing in Greece, a bloated inefficient PS, a country even deeper int he mire than we are, and yet the PS are taking to the streets complaining about the austerity budget and the paycuts they must accept.

Why is it neither the Unions or the PS Workers in both countries cannot recognise that the country cannot afford to pay them, and something has to be done?

RobbieTheRobber

Inquitus wrote: »

Why is it neither the Unions or the PS Workers in both countries cannot recognise that the country cannot afford to pay them, and something has to be done?

I understand there isn't money, so what is the solution cut the pay to such unreasonable levels that anyone with any real skills will leave either the service or the country.
What will be left is those who have no real skills and this will not improve the productivity or ability of the service, it will only harm it and the country it is designed to support.

Inquitus

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I understand there isn't money, so what is the solution cut the pay to such unreasonable levels that anyone with any real skills will leave either the service or the country.
What will be left is those who have no real skills and this will not improve the productivity or ability of the service, it will only harm it and the country it is designed to support.

The PS is brutally inefficient, real change, introducing real efficiencies could result in a dramatic fall in the number of PS Workers required without affecting service levels. The Unions however looks after its own interests as well as members interests, and seeing a smaller union and a smaller PS workforce is against its interests.

RobbieTheRobber

Inquitus wrote: »

The PS is brutally inefficient, real change, introducing real efficiencies could result in a dramatic fall in the number of PS Workers required without affecting service levels. The Unions however looks after its own interests as well as members interests, and seeing a smaller union and a smaller PS workforce is against its interests.

The government introduced mandatory cuts without the unions ok.
So its clearly not scared of them.

So by the same logic the government could offer redundancy which many including myself would gladly take at this stage, thereby reducing the number of staff if it so wanted, after that all thats left is reform.

But reform wont happen because like I said the rudders of this ship(Civil service) are broken(those at assistant secratary level), they agree with government that reform is needed but what has changed with them.

They agreed with government that wage cuts were needed then excluded themselves.

Yes pay cuts to the little guy will save money but it wont reform the service and it wont change the problems it will just hide them again.


Change has to come from those at the top it has too!

RobbieTheRobber

Inquitus wrote: »

The PS is brutally inefficient, real change, introducing real efficiencies could result in a dramatic fall in the number of PS Workers required without affecting service levels. The Unions however looks after its own interests as well as members interests, and seeing a smaller union and a smaller PS workforce is against its interests.

One other tiny issue is government agencies by the nature of their work cannot be as efficent as the private sector. It cant, thats not to say there isn't plenty of opportunity for reform, but we cant compare them like for like.

beeno67

I think the government would quite happily accept a pay freeze rather than further pay cuts. A freeze for 3 years with a recruitment ban could result in a reduction in public sector pay bill in real terms of 20% over 3 years.

If this is then coupled with a reduction in overtime, allowances and savings in pensions then the savings would be very good.

If this is the bottom line of the ordinary worker then I see no reason for strikes. The majority of the public would certainly support them.

97i9y3941

why cant they accept that there's loads of people on the dole who would work for the reduced wages and wouldn't complain?...

galway2007

Fred83 wrote: »

why cant they accept that there's loads of people on the dole who would work for the reduced wages and wouldn't complain?...

can you even see that what you are saying is that you wnat china wages
Dose on the dole should have taught about joining the public sector year ago o but there were to busy making big wage demand for shot time gain

97i9y3941

yes but not all them where builders,some where doing the same admin jobs in the private sector and they got their cuts,and when that wasn't enough they got let go,and nobody stood up for them..

galway2007

beeno67 wrote: »

I think the government would quite happily accept a pay freeze rather than further pay cuts. A freeze for 3 years with a recruitment ban could result in a reduction in public sector pay bill in real terms of 20% over 3 years.

If this is then coupled with a reduction in overtime, allowances and savings in pensions then the savings would be very good.

If this is the bottom line of the ordinary worker then I see no reason for strikes. The majority of the public would certainly support them.

unions will not accept that
what i think will happen is the pay cuts will be given back over maybe 5 year and they will be looking for a reduction of about 100k in staff numbers
This will have meant there will have being a 5 year pay cut of some rate and a pay freeze.
But it the private sector get greedy again and drive inflation up like the last ten year that will cause a lot of trouble

hmmm

galway2007 wrote: »

But it the private sector get greedy again and drive inflation up like the last ten year that will cause a lot of trouble

Recent inflation figures continue to show that the real economy is in deflation, while the public and semi sector monopolies continue to increase costs.

To the previous poster who suggested a pay freeze would lead to a 20% real reduction in pay, that can't happen in a deflationary environment and in particular not when increments continue to be paid.

The unions appear to have no coherent strategy. Impotent rage is not a strategy.

Riskymove

galway2007 wrote: »

unions will not accept that
what i think will happen is the pay cuts will be given back over maybe 5 year and they will be looking for a reduction of about 100k in staff numbers

a 100,000 posts gone, very unlikely thats one in three in the public service, three times the entire civil service


I think whats being talked about is not far off what will happen

we'll see agreement on the reforms which were proposed last december in return for no more pay cuts and that will end the industrial action

then we'll see development of further reforms through the Transformation Agenda

But it the private sector get greedy again and drive inflation up like the last ten year that will cause a lot of trouble

yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn...give it a rest

Riskymove

Fred83 wrote: »

and nobody stood up for them..

why not do you think?

97i9y3941

because they had no choice the company's would close up shop and move away,any job cuts in the ps usually gets you a lovely pay off or a move to another department.

galway2007

Riskymove wrote: »

a 100,000 posts gone, very unlikely thats one in three in the public service, three times the entire civil service


I think whats being talked about is not far off what will happen

we'll see agreement on the reforms which were proposed last december in return for no more pay cuts and that will end the industrial action

then we'll see development of further reforms through the Transformation Agenda



yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn...give it a rest

But but but
The unions have no mandate to agree to that
Do you think that that agreement will bring industrial peace
The CPSU will not agree to it so do we want seens like the passport office for the nest five year???
If that is what is on offer the talk will breakdown

Riskymove

galway2007 wrote: »

Riskymove wrote: »

But but but
The unions have no mandate to agree to that
Do you think that that agreement will bring industrial peace
The CPSU will not agree to it so do we want seens like the passport office for the nest five year???
If that is what is on offer the talk will breakdown

I left out that there will be a general agreement to review pay and restore pay levels when things improve

I think most unions will actually agree to that..if the CPSU think they can get more by not answering the phone, good luck to them

galway2007

hmmm wrote: »

Recent inflation figures continue to show that the real economy is in deflation, while the public and semi sector monopolies continue to increase costs.

To the previous poster who suggested a pay freeze would lead to a 20% real reduction in pay, that can't happen in a deflationary environment and in particular not when increments continue to be paid.

The unions appear to have no coherent strategy. Impotent rage is not a strategy.

Deflation is due to interest rate being so low and that is about to change.
I agree the semi sector need to be take on and made cut there prices
Take the ESB why dose the regulator not impose a 20% reduction in ESB price???

galway2007

Riskymove wrote: »

galway2007 wrote: »

I left out that there will be a general agreement to review pay and restore pay levels when things improve

I think most unions will actually agree to that..if the CPSU think they can get more by not answering the phone, good luck to them

No but what the CPSU is looking for is no cut for anybody under 30k which they might get and that the paycuts are put back on the higher paid

murphaph

galway2007 wrote: »

can you even see that what you are saying is that you wnat china wages
Dose on the dole should have taught about joining the public sector year ago o but there were to busy making big wage demand for shot time gain

I can't stand this anymore. How the hell did you pass the civil service exam with this level of English. I make the odd typo, like anyone, but you really can't spell mate. There are loads of typos and a complete lack of punctuation in your post as well, just for good measure. Please don't tell me that you are worth my taxes doing whatever the hell it is you do. I EXPECT civil servants to be able to spell basic words properly and that's not a high expectation to have. If someone spells Mississippi wrong then no big deal, but those, thought and they are words everybody should be able to spell, especially those people who claim to be worth every penny of the taxpayer's money!

Riskymove

galway2007 wrote: »

Riskymove wrote: »

No but what the CPSU is looking for is no cut for anybody under 30k which they might get and that the paycuts are put back on the higher paid

wont happen

whatever about pay cuts for low paid being restored, they wont be put back on higher paid now

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

I can't stand this anymore. How the hell did you pass the civil service exam with this level of English. I make the odd typo, like anyone, but you really can't spell mate. There are loads of typos and a complete lack of punctuation in your post as well, just for good measure. Please don't tell me that you are worth my taxes doing whatever the hell it is you do. I EXPECT civil servants to be able to spell basic words properly and that's not a high expectation to have.

oh get over yourself

murphaph

galway2007 wrote: »

Deflation is due to interest rate being so low and that is about to change.
I agree the semi sector need to be take on and made cut there prices
Take the ESB why dose the regulator not impose a 20% reduction in ESB price???

You haven't a clue. Low interest rates help to cause inflation!! That's why central banks increase interest rates when economies are overheating, something we couldn't do during the boom years as Germany and France required low interest rates to try to boost their deflationary economies. <shakes head>. The ESB has competition at least, if you don't like their prices then switch to a competitor like Bord Gais, who guarantee to be 10% cheaper. If enough people switch, the regulator will allow the ESB to reduce prices. At the moment the regulator believes the ESB could crush the competition, then return to high prices once they're gone.

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

oh get over yourself

I expected someone to defend poor standards and here it is.

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

I expected someone to defend poor standards and here it is.

Where did I defend poor standards?

I just told you to get over yourself


neither you nor I know anything about the poster but I'll make a general comment...there are all sorts of types of jobs in the civil service, they are not all bureaucrats practising their spelling

there are craftsmen, janitorial staff, drivers, labourers etc where spelling is not particularly important

97i9y3941

murphaph wrote: »

The ESB has competition at least, if you don't like their prices then switch to a competitor like Bord Gais, who guarantee to be 10% cheaper. If enough people switch, the regulator will allow the ESB to reduce prices. At the moment the regulator believes the ESB could crush the competition, then return to high prices once they're gone.

what about eircom and their monopoly on phone lines?,its always the case of eircom dictating to comreg what they are going to do in certain situations..

murphaph

Fred83 wrote: »

what about eircom and their monopoly on phone lines?,its always the case of eircom dictating to comreg what they are going to do in certain situations..

Comreg is the public service again, doing a bloody awful job.

galway2007

murphaph wrote: »

I can't stand this anymore. How the hell did you pass the civil service exam with this level of English. I make the odd typo, like anyone, but you really can't spell mate. There are loads of typos and a complete lack of punctuation in your post as well, just for good measure. Please don't tell me that you are worth my taxes doing whatever the hell it is you do. I EXPECT civil servants to be able to spell basic words properly and that's not a high expectation to have. If someone spells Mississippi wrong then no big deal, but those, thought and they are words everybody should be able to spell, especially those people who claim to be worth every penny of the taxpayer's money!

so this is what we can get from private sector scum like you
did you every hear of a condition called dyslexia you thick head
Spelling has nothing to do with my job and i dont sit on my ass all day like you. Now i suggest you open you mind to the real world as to me you come across as a sad person up ther own hole
Get a life

galway2007

murphaph wrote: »

You haven't a clue. Low interest rates help to cause inflation!! That's why central banks increase interest rates when economies are overheating, something we couldn't do during the boom years as Germany and France required low interest rates to try to boost their deflationary economies. <shakes head>. The ESB has competition at least, if you don't like their prices then switch to a competitor like Bord Gais, who guarantee to be 10% cheaper. If enough people switch, the regulator will allow the ESB to reduce prices. At the moment the regulator believes the ESB could crush the competition, then return to high prices once they're gone.

Wrong again you are so thick you must suffer thicklexia
In Ireland we take interest rate in to account in our inflation rate
Will I draw u a picture?
When interest come down it is included in our inflation rate hence we have deflation
And you go in to have HIGH EDUCATION
Board gais are 5 % cheaper (12 % for first year)
Man gets you fact correct

nesf

galway2007 wrote: »

so this is what we can get from private sector scum like you
did you every hear of a condition called dyslexia you thick head
Spelling has nothing to do with my job and i dont sit on my ass all day like you. Now i suggest you open you mind to the real world as to me you come across as a sad person up ther own hole
Get a life

Banned for a week for abuse.

deise blue

Riskymove wrote: »

Where did I defend poor standards?

I just told you to get over yourself


neither you nor I know anything about the poster but I'll make a general comment...there are all sorts of types of jobs in the civil service, they are not all bureaucrats practising their spelling

there are craftsmen, janitorial staff, drivers, labourers etc where spelling is not particularly important

Quite agree with you.

Sad and pedantic allied to intellectual snobbery picking someone up on their spelling.

BeardyFunzo

OP

To answer your question I believe the trade union members want nothing more than to maintain current levels of pay for the near future. I do not believe that union leaders are on that same page.

murphaph

galway2007 wrote: »

Wrong again you are so thick you must suffer thicklexia

Good one :rolleyes:

galway2007 wrote: »

In Ireland we take interest rate in to account in our inflation rate

You clearly don't understand fairly basic economics. when interest rates are low, people borrow more and therefore spend more. When people spend more, the demand for goods and services rises and the cost of these goods and services increases as a result. It's used as a tool to stimulate flagging economies. Increasing interest rates has the opposite effect and is used to cool overheating economies. These tools have been used by central banks for donkey's years.

galway2007 wrote: »

Will I draw u a picture?

No, because it would be wrong.

galway2007 wrote: »

When interest come down it is included in our inflation rate hence we have deflation

FFS, we had record low interest rates during the boom, when inflation soared. See any problems with your 'logic' yet?

galway2007 wrote: »

And you go in to have HIGH EDUCATION

I never stated anything about my educational background, which I would say is average for someone of my age.

galway2007 wrote: »

Board gais are 5 % cheaper (12 % for first year)
Man gets you fact correct

Fine. Bord Gais are cheaper in any case, which was my primary point.