Jack O'Connor has some neck...

Silvio.Dante

He's running with the fox and hunting with the hounds. Trying to seem as if he's listening to his membership while at the same time trying to look good in the eyes of FF to secure his future outside union leadership. Really grubby.

He's willing to sign his members up to a deal whereby the workers give huge transformation up front, then in a few years the Govt can renege on the deal and we're stuck in our new roles/locations and our terms and conditions of employment savaged.

He must be on a big promise

Welease

His members are part of a democratic union.. they will have the chance to vote on accepting the deal.. and then live with the consequences of their actions.

Dannyboy83

I've heard the same from a lot of union members, and while I feel sympathy for the dilemma a lot of them are in, I think there is sod all Jack O'Connor or anybody else, could do about it.

The country is simply fubar'd.

What would you like to see him (realistically) achieve for members?

Silvio.Dante

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I've heard the same from a lot of union members, and while I feel sympathy for the dilemma a lot of them are in, I think there is sod all Jack O'Connor or anybody else, could do about it.

The country is simply fubar'd.

What would you like to see him (realistically) achieve for members?

There's a difference between not being able to deliver and deliberately agreeing to a deal that screws members and then trying to conceal it. My own union leader Blair Horan has done the same only his executive rounded on him bigstyle on Monday. He's in a very uncomfortable position right now as are other union sellout merchants.

Sizzler

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

He's running with the fox and hunting with the hounds. Trying to seem as if he's listening to his membership while at the same time trying to look good in the eyes of FF to secure his future outside union leadership. Really grubby.

He's willing to sign his members up to a deal whereby the workers give huge transformation up front, then in a few years the Govt can renege on the deal and we're stuck in our new roles/locations and our terms and conditions of employment savaged.

He must be on a big promise

And a nice €165k salary courtesy of your goodself, bet that makes you feel good

Amazing you are rumbling these guys now for what they are.

NinjaTruncs

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

He's willing to sign his members up to a deal whereby the workers give huge transformation up front, then in a few years the Govt can renege on the deal and we're stuck in our new roles/locations and our terms and conditions of employment savaged.

He must be on a big promise

As apposed to the last deal, where the Gov gave huge pay increases upfront and the unions reneged on their side a few years down the line.

Highly Salami

Welease wrote: »

His members are part of a democratic union.. they will have the chance to vote on accepting the deal.. and then live with the consequences of their actions.

They will live with the consequences of being forcibly relocated to BallynaMuckers and getting tiny pensions when they retire if they vote for the deal.

Silvio.Dante

Sizzler wrote: »

And a nice €165k salary courtesy of your goodself, bet that makes you feel good

Amazing you are rumbling these guys now for what they are.

Blair horan is my lad on €120K. He's done a fine job down the years in my view but this Croke Park deal has shown him up as either incompetent or something more sinister...

Silvio.Dante

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

As apposed to the last deal, where the Gov gave huge pay increases upfront and the unions reneged on their side a few years down the line.

Facts and figures please...

Silvio.Dante

Highly Salami wrote: »

They will live with the consequences of being forcibly relocated to BallynaMuckers and getting tiny pensions when they retire if they vote for the deal.

In a nutshell...:D

NinjaTruncs

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Facts and figures please...

Fact = benchmarking

meditraitor

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Facts and figures please...

Its not a school we are running here, go find them yourself. They are everywere..... Start with decentralisation/Benchmarking

danman

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Blair horan is my lad on €120K. He's done a fine job down the years in my view but this Croke Park deal has shown him up as either incompetent or something more sinister...

So, while the economy is booming and the unions deliver payrises, he's great.

But when the economy tanks, and he sees the reality of the situation, he's evil?

Silvio.Dante

meditraitor wrote: »

Its not a school we are running here, go find them yourself. They are everywere..... Start with decentralisation/Benchmarking

I'm not the one making the allegation therefore not for me to go looking.

Silvio.Dante

danman wrote: »

So, while the economy is booming and the unions deliver payrises, he's great.

But when the economy tanks, and he sees the reality of the situation, he's evil?

He's there to serve my best interests. The Croke Park disaster in no way serves my best interests and Blair was told that in no uncertain terms on a regular basis since by members up and down the country.

Silvio.Dante

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Fact = benchmarking

Must do better than that dude.

Riskymove

meditraitor wrote: »

Its not a school we are running here, go find them yourself. They are everywere..... Start with decentralisation/Benchmarking

we have been here before many times

decentralisation was not brought in with any union agreeement so how could they renage?

with regard to benchmarking, the reform requirements contained within the agreement were implemented

MaceFace

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

He's running with the fox and hunting with the hounds. Trying to seem as if he's listening to his membership while at the same time trying to look good in the eyes of FF to secure his future outside union leadership. Really grubby.

He's willing to sign his members up to a deal whereby the workers give huge transformation up front, then in a few years the Govt can renege on the deal and we're stuck in our new roles/locations and our terms and conditions of employment savaged.

He must be on a big promise

As much as I loathe that man, your analysis is baseless.
All he has simply done is assess a situation and given his recommendation on what he deems may be the least worse outcome.

For all we know, "your" union leaders recommendation of rejection could leave you and your colleagues either out of a job or with more pay cuts. If this does transpire, would your analysis of the current stance still hold?

Silvio.Dante

MaceFace wrote: »

As much as I loathe that man, your analysis is baseless.
All he has simply done is assess a situation and given his recommendation on what he deems may be the least worse outcome.

For all we know, "your" union leaders recommendation of rejection could leave you and your colleagues either out of a job or with more pay cuts. If this does transpire, would your analysis of the current stance still hold?

No crystal ball here I'm afraid. The Croke Park deal is a disgrace and will be roundly rejected hence putting into serious question the continuation of the current union leadership.

NinjaTruncs

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Must do better than that dude.

Ok, lets go from a different angle here.

What deal would you have wanted him to come back with?

danman

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

He's there to serve my best interests. The Croke Park disaster in no way serves my best interests and Blair was told that in no uncertain terms on a regular basis since by members up and down the country.

I would love to have 6 months holidays per year, 500% payrises and whatever else comes into my mind.
But the reality of the situation, is that it's not possible.

Do you not think that, perhaps, the union leaders that went into the talks were shown the situation, and the alternatives to this deal. That this deal is the lesser of 2 evils.

Remember, the government hasn't denied that the 8% cuts could happen if the deal isn't agreed.

It actually looks like some of the militant union members are enjoying this.
"Bring it on" when talking about strikes.

The union leaders know, that the only power they have is all out strikes. But they also know that they don't have the means to pay for an all out strike for the prolonged period required to have an effect.

If union members want to vote in favour of an 8% cut, that's their choice. Savings have to be made, it's either reform or the cut.
I know which I would choose, and I know which one my wife is going to vote for.

Silvio.Dante

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Ok, lets go from a different angle here.

What deal would you have wanted him to come back with?

Nice deflection. Do I take it you retract you earlier baseless allegation?

On this question you pose there's one basic service I expect from my union leaders. that is having my interests at the core of their actions and to be open and honest with mmebers on the ground.

On both scores Blair horan let the CPSU members down badly. Firstly in negotiating an open ended upfront deal on 'Transformation' that seriously denegrades out Terms and Conditions of employment with nothing concrete in return.

While secondly deliberately not mentions the concessions either on the media or on the CPSU homepage. Disgraceful.

Silvio.Dante

danman wrote: »

I would love to have 6 months holidays per year, 500% payrises and whatever else comes into my mind.
But the reality of the situation, is that it's not possible.

Do you not think that, perhaps, the union leaders that went into the talks were shown the situation, and the alternatives to this deal. That this deal is the lesser of 2 evils.

Remember, the government hasn't denied that the 8% cuts could happen if the deal isn't agreed.

It actually looks like some of the militant union members are enjoying this.
"Bring it on" when talking about strikes.

The union leaders know, that the only power they have is all out strikes. But they also know that they don't have the means to pay for an all out strike for the prolonged period required to have an effect.

If union members want to vote in favour of an 8% cut, that's their choice. Savings have to be made, it's either reform or the cut.
I know which I would choose, and I know which one my wife is going to vote for.

Yet again this is not about all out striking. We've shown that work to rules and selective strike action is as effective as all out action and keeps us on the payroll.

dlofnep

danman wrote: »

I would love to have 6 months holidays per year, 500% payrises and whatever else comes into my mind.

Who receives 6 month holidays, and 500% payrises?

danman wrote: »

But the reality of the situation, is that it's not possible.

The above is not the reality. Try again.

Riskymove

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Ok, lets go from a different angle here.

What deal would you have wanted him to come back with?

from my conversations with people I think its clear that the main obstacle here is a complete breakdown in trust with the Government.

while people understand that we are in financial trouble, they are not happy to sign up to an agreement whith such vague criteria as they believe the Government will use them without any firm basis

People would be far happier if there were clear criteria, for example, if things got worse to a certain specified extent (be it a deficit level or revenue fall or whatever) then the deal was off

likewise if things improved to a certain specified level then pay could begin to be restored etc

danman

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Yet again this is not about all out striking. We've shown that work to rules and selective strike action is as effective as all out action and keeps us on the payroll.

It's also been said on these boards, by workers in the passport office itself, that certain tasks that were pulled during the work to rule shouldn't have been, eg manning public desks.

The government gave leeway during this period, but it was obvious towards the end, that they were going to start deducting pay of members deemed not to be doing their jobs.

Infact, the entire episode galvanised public support for the governments stance.
If it goes back to this, ordinary taxpayers will show more support towards the government stance, and will be prepared to have a bit more hassle if it means the PS will be reformed.

Again, the only effective action would be an all out strike.
The work to rule will only give the government a bigger mandate to push through it's own agenda.

Would you rather have your reps (unions) involved with reform, or would you rather they simply bring legislation through the Dail?

Negotiating with the unions is only a courtesy, they don't need them to bring in new legislation.

Silvio.Dante

danman wrote: »

It's also been said on these boards, by workers in the passport office itself, that certain tasks that were pulled during the work to rule shouldn't have been, eg manning public desks.

The government gave leeway during this period, but it was obvious towards the end, that they were going to start deducting pay of members deemed not to be doing their jobs.

Infact, the entire episode galvanised public support for the governments stance.
If it goes back to this, ordinary taxpayers will show more support towards the government stance, and will be prepared to have a bit more hassle if it means the PS will be reformed.

Again, the only effective action would be an all out strike.
The work to rule will only give the government a bigger mandate to push through it's own agenda.

Would you rather have your reps (unions) involved with reform, or would you rather they simply bring legislation through the Dail?

Negotiating with the unions is only a courtesy, they don't need them to bring in new legislation.

We don't engage in industrial action to be popular. Its intent is to obstruct the delivery of service to the public therefore resulting in our unpopularity. So be it.

whippet

it amazes me the total lack of understanding as it appears from the public sector workforce as to the scale of the problem and the steps that are necessary to correct the situation.

Maybe, they do fully understand but are choosing to acknowlege it or are just plain greedy in wanting to not be part of the solution.

To have job security and pay rates crystalised for the next few years in today's climate is unbelievable, yet they cry that this isn't enough.

These workers are on probably the best terms and conditions of employments in the state yet they feel they can spit in to the faces of the rest of the irish taxpayers banging a mantra of 'bankers', 'developers' 'we didn't cause this' .... well neither did I, neither did 99% of the rest of the workforce, but we have to take our pain.

The small company I work for has had to accept a bad debt over nearly €250000, wiping out any prospect of pay rises, commissions etc for the next year or two, coupled with a 10% pay decrease, increased working hours and 12% of the workforce being made redundant.

We are not banging on the door of the MD looking for our pay to be restored, we are actually pulling together as a work force to help the company out, get in to a stonger position for when times are better and look after our collective best interests.

I cannot listen to the bleeding hearts of civil & public servants talking about having to service massive mortages on a reduced wage ....... many more of us have to do the same, yet we don't have a soap box and baying mob to shout to.

If you can't afford your mortage based on a reduction of around 10% in your salary you shouldn't have drawn down that mortage, you over committed yourself ... when interest rates we historically low. If your wages remained the same and interest rates increased by a couple of base points you would be in the same position.

We find it easy to slate the developers who speculated on property prices and sustainability of the bubble with borrowed funds ...... many individuals did the very same thing, over borrowing on personal mortgages to buy property they couldn't really afford, but justifying their decision based on fantasy based future values. ..... Developers just did it on a much larger scale.

When I was buying my house in 2005, I was offered a much larger mortgage than I actually drew down. I am living in a more modest house, everyone said I was made, 'Borrow as much as you can' ...... now I have a modest mortgage, luckly not in negative equity and in a position where by I can save a good part of my salary each month.

NinjaTruncs

You say I’m deflecting yet you don't answer the question, you say they should represent your interests, how do you know they have not done so? I asked what kind of deal you would have been happy with.

The country is in the ****ter, cuts need to be made, there are only two ways to cut the wage bill, reduce pay or numbers. The unions have gotten an agreement that as long as economic conditions do not deteriorate further no more cuts will be made, don't you think that is fair? We still have a very large deficit which needs to be managed and if we can't cut any more from pay then other areas/services will need to be cut. Do you honestly think the gov are going to give back the cuts the implemented? if they did so their international reputation would be ruined.

And in relation to Benching marking where does it say wages can only go up? benchmarking implies wages can go up or down, but since it's not in anyone’s interests to get benchmarked downwards they would never call for such a deal. People make a big deal about the Public sector vs. Private sector where not all private workers have seen pay cuts. If the wage bill is too big the in a private company they either cut wages, which can be hard to do, or cut numbers more often. Would you have preferred the unions to come out with a deal where pay is restored but 20% of the numbers need to be let go, and with the way redundancies go it wouldn't be a lot of management getting let go it would have been the front line workers on the "low wages".

danman

dlofnep wrote: »

Who receives 6 month holidays, and 500% payrises?



The above is not the reality. Try again.

I was simply giving an exagarated version of my wishlist in life.

I'm pointing out that this deal is the best that will be put forward.

If you want to selective posting, I don't mind. But please read the entire post and respond to the sentiments of the post.

murphaph

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

He's there to serve my best interests. The Croke Park disaster in no way serves my best interests and Blair was told that in no uncertain terms on a regular basis since by members up and down the country.

Would you respect him more if he fought for a deal he believed himself to be impossible to implement, even if it was in your opinion, in your best interest?

murphaph

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Yet again this is not about all out striking. We've shown that work to rules and selective strike action is as effective as all out action and keeps us on the payroll.

It's stealing taxpayers' money is all it is. Have the courage of your convictions or do your job, including answering the fcuking telephone.

danman

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

We don't engage in industrial action to be popular. Its intent is to obstruct the delivery of service to the public therefore resulting in our unpopularity. So be it.

You don't seem to understand the premise of industrial action.

It's purpose I'd to cause hassle for the employer, either costing them money, or in PS case, to cause enough hassle for the public that they turn against the government.

The work to rule had the opposite effect. It galvanised support for the governments actions.
Why would the government bow down to union demands, when the majority of the public were against the unions action?

I think that the union leaders realised this.

tunney

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Yet again this is not about all out striking. We've shown that work to rules and selective strike action is as effective as all out action and keeps us on the payroll.

What happens when the general public get fed up and these "work to rule" people start getting egged on the way to "work"?

Silvio.Dante

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

You say I’m deflecting yet you don't answer the question, you say they should represent your interests, how do you know they have not done so? I asked what kind of deal you would have been happy with.

The country is in the ****ter, cuts need to be made, there are only two ways to cut the wage bill, reduce pay or numbers. The unions have gotten an agreement that as long as economic conditions do not deteriorate further no more cuts will be made, don't you think that is fair? We still have a very large deficit which needs to be managed and if we can't cut any more from pay then other areas/services will need to be cut. Do you honestly think the gov are going to give back the cuts the implemented? if they did so their international reputation would be ruined.

And in relation to Benching marking where does it say wages can only go up? benchmarking implies wages can go up or down, but since it's not in anyone’s interests to get benchmarked downwards they would never call for such a deal. People make a big deal about the Public sector vs. Private sector where not all private workers have seen pay cuts. If the wage bill is too big the in a private company they either cut wages, which can be hard to do, or cut numbers more often. Would you have preferred the unions to come out with a deal where pay is restored but 20% of the numbers need to be let go, and with the way redundancies go it wouldn't be a lot of management getting let go it would have been the front line workers on the "low wages".

If I were Blair horan and had my mmebers interest at heart and was offered this deal I'd have either walked out or come out straight and call it what it is. A completely unacceptable deal.

However he did neither. He came out highlighting 'his' main points of the deal and never even mentioned anything about the detail of what we were expected to give up.

I'm not an expert in negotiations so cannot say 'what I'd have accepted'. Thats what I pay blair to do. However what I do expect is to be able to trust my representatives to be honest with me. Blair has failed that fundamental taks in my view...

I accept your implicit retraction by the way...;)

Silvio.Dante

murphaph wrote: »

It's stealing taxpayers' money is all it is. Have the courage of your convictions or do your job, including answering the fcuking telephone.

If theres further indescriminate attacks on out pay and conditions we'll take the action most appropriate at the time.

Silvio.Dante

tunney wrote: »

What happens when the general public get fed up and these "work to rule" people start getting egged on the way to "work"?

Any assaults on our members will be dealt with our PS colleagues in An Garda Síochana.

dlofnep

danman wrote: »

I was simply giving an exagarated version of my wishlist in life.

I'm pointing out that this deal is the best that will be put forward.

If you want to selective posting, I don't mind. But please read the entire post and respond to the sentiments of the post.

Give a more balanced account of what's actually occurring, and I might consider your sentiments. Exaggerating events to suit your own POV isn't reflective of what's happening, and doesn't lend itself well to the discussion.

lucernarian

Part of the supposed "work to rule" has been some councillors not having their questions or requests dealt with by lower-ranking council officials if they did not appear to be in support of the public sector unions' campaign. That sort of "selective cold-shouldering" is not reasonable, even if they were right to go on the offensive against FF and the Greens. It looks very childish and spiteful to take it out on elected members directly rather than discussing/protesting gripes with their employers - the council as a whole.

Also, I don't remember any union official having the democratic mandate to obstruct a certain party or parties on the basis of a union dispute?


But I do think that the "deal" the unions got is in reality a bargain for the Govt. I can understand why the unions would want to reject a deal which doesn't even have guaranteed pay rises in place in exchange for productivity reforms. Because what's proposed is a more proper reform not some mickey-mouse "I'll look after another 2 filing cabinets" for a 5% pay rise idea.

murphaph

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Any assaults on our members will be dealt with our PS colleagues in An Garda Síochana.

even if they also stop answering their telephones?

whippet

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

If theres further indescriminate attacks on out pay and conditions

Now this is a quote that really gets under my skin ....... indiscriminate ... have a look at a dictionary to get a definition of the word.

The only pay that the government can actually cut is those of the public/civil service, so emotive language like that does not wash with me.

Much like the use of the words 'Vunerable in Society' ... an all encompassing term to generate emotions without definition.

tunney

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Any assaults on our members will be dealt with our PS colleagues in An Garda Síochana.

I didn't quite mean it literally.

Should the general public turn further against the "work to rule" actions then I can envisage scenarios then its pretty much game over for the PS. Self defeating actions. Turning the general public completely against themselves and thereby giving carte blanche to slash and burn PS pay, pension and conditions would not be the brightest move.

Silvio.Dante

murphaph wrote: »

even if they also stop answering their telephones?

We will support our PS colleagues across the board in any action taken against further attacks on out terms of pay and employment thats attempted to be bulldozed through without consultation and agreement.

average_runner

Silvio Dante;


You said the unions should of got a deal that serve your interest!

Maybe the union knows more than you do and that if they dont go with this deal, you could infact lose your job as goverment cant afford maybe anything else??

This would not be allowed to be public knowledge due to the mahem it would cause!!

Ever

jon1981

Silvio.Dante you're on here 2 hours now... why aren't you working!!! :pac:

average_runner

Silvio Dante;


You said the unions should of got a deal that serve your interest!

Maybe the union knows more than you do and that if they dont go with this deal, you could infact lose your job as goverment cant afford maybe anything else??

This would not be allowed to be public knowledge due to the mahem it would cause!!

Ever think that?

Maybe goverment should do a benchmark process of seeing who is needed and not needed in PS and get rid of those who not needed!

Cyrus

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

If I were Blair horan and had my mmebers interest at heart and was offered this deal I'd have either walked out or come out straight and call it what it is. A completely unacceptable deal.

what would you think is an acceptable deal?

also you do realise that your employer is broke? in the private sector, if your employer is broke, the company goes bust and you lose your job, obviously that wont happen here as your employer is the government,

but surely you accept the fact that the current level of public sector pay is unsustainable, and as such the pay cuts were required and reform of the public sector is also needed?

or do you have a different viewpoint, and please dont tell me its not your fault that the country is broke...

Silvio.Dante

tunney wrote: »

I didn't quite mean it literally.

Should the general public turn further against the "work to rule" actions then I can envisage scenarios then its pretty much game over for the PS. Self defeating actions. Turning the general public completely against themselves and thereby giving carte blanche to slash and burn PS pay, pension and conditions would not be the brightest move.

Nonsense. we don't need public support. Remember how Brendan Ogle and the train drivers were vilified but they kept up their action and came to an agreement. Similar to Dublin Bus drivers and ESB workers many years ago.

I say again. I'm not in this to be 'popular'.

Silvio.Dante

average_runner wrote: »

Silvio Dante;


You said the unions should of got a deal that serve your interest!

Maybe the union knows more than you do and that if they dont go with this deal, you could infact lose your job as goverment cant afford maybe anything else??

This would not be allowed to be public knowledge due to the mahem it would cause!!

Ever

We can't operate on a Donald Rumsfeld level of known knowns, known unknowns and unkown unknowns...:D

average_runner

If employer which is goverment goes broke alot of them will lose their jobs as IMF will have to step in!!

whippet

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

further attacks on out terms of pay and employment thats attempted to be bulldozed through without consultation and agreement.

again, emotive language.

Terms and conditions will have to be enforced if you are unwilling to agree to them. Now you are saying 'without consultation' ... what the hell was going on in Croke Park?

The government has obviously laid down what is required (that is what their job is - the union's are not elected by the people so therefore they shouldn't decide)

The government then 'consult' with the Unions as to how they need to act on the required measures. If they can't get an agreement from the unions/members they are left with no choice but to enforce the measures.

Do you expect the government to keep 'consulting' until the union membership are calling the shots? That is what Bertie did for years and look at the mess it has left us in :mad:

I would love to see business / shop owners having the balls to refuse service to public / civil sector workers who go on strike, inessence turning the tables.