Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

more paycuts for ps workers in budget 2011

  • 18-04-2010 09:16PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭


    OK, so croke park deal looks shaky. If it's rejected, (likely) what's the thinking on further paycuts in budget 2011 in december.


«1345

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,007 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    If its rejected, it gives the government the perfect platform to push through whatever they want in the way of reforms and pay cuts to the public sector citing that they tried to negotiate and they were refused.

    It is about the only thing that seems to cause FF to rise in opinion polls ATM and they know they have the unions in a rock and a hard place which is why the deal wasn't fair to begin with.

    The unions will reject it and most likely screw themselves over although if they accepted it they'd jus be slightly less screwed IMO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    all the talk is that there will be a further 8% cut in th next budget if the deal is rejected plus whatever tax reforms are brought in for everyone


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭unit 1


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    all the talk is that there will be a further 8% cut in th next budget if the deal is rejected plus whatever tax reforms are brought in for everyone
    I have "heard" this talk but wonder what the precise source is, as the unions don't seem to be giving it any legs one way or another.
    To be honest as a coco employee many workers are totally demoralised, and quite frankly are likely to be led by the nose if this paycut rumour is confirmed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    unit 1 wrote: »
    I have "heard" this talk but wonder what the precise source is, as the unions don't seem to be giving it any legs one way or another.
    To be honest as a coco employee many workers are totally demoralised, and quite frankly are likely to be led by the nose if this paycut rumour is confirmed.

    if the unions reject the deal it really dosnt matter what they think all bets are off the goverment will make the necessary cuts and there will be widespread massive strikes that could last a very long time

    luckily i believe the goverment have the stomach to hold out this time


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    if the unions reject the deal it really dosnt matter what they think all bets are off the goverment will make the necessary cuts and there will be widespread massive strikes that could last a very long time

    luckily i believe the goverment have the stomach to hold out this time

    I think it will be passed.

    If it isn't passed and the government cut another 8% then the resulting industrial action will be much better supported by the public servants. It would be a very messy 2011 and hopefully it would bring down fianna fail.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    changes wrote: »
    I think it will be passed.

    If it isn't passed and the government cut another 8% then the resulting industrial action will be much better supported by the public servants. It would be a very messy 2011 and hopefully it would bring down fianna fail.

    at the moment it dosnt look like its eve close to being passed

    fianna fail are gone anyway no matter what they do they will not be the next goverment. between now and then i do believe they will do their best to right the mess they have caused

    if there are more cuts im sure the entire public sector will be striking but as i said the goverment and the general public will outlast them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    If it's not passed, I would say the government has carte blanche to make any changes they want. The unions will oppose, and there may be strikes, but I honestly believe the strikes would be short lived as the unions do not have the funds for any long term action. Also when the normal unions members see the government is serious, they might change their attitude. I still think there are a majority of union members (the silent majority) who realise the situation already, and therefore I still think there is a reasonable chance that the deal will be accepted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    If its not passed the first time it would take the following path imo:
    • Government cuts pay again by 8% in december
    • Public sector strike
    • Government back track on new paycut
    • PS vote again and accept the deal.

    they may aswell accept it now!!!


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    I'd say they'll go for a graded paycut..:

    Up to 30K 3%

    30-50K 5%

    50-100K 7%

    100K+ 10%


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    I'd say they'll go for a graded paycut..:

    Up to 30K 3%

    30-50K 5%

    50-100K 7%

    100K+ 10%

    This would have nothing to do that you spend more time d!cking on boards than working and as such are still on < 30k?

    Why should those with valuable skills be punished percentage wise more than those who, in all honesty, only skill was probably passing an entrance exam?


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    tunney wrote: »
    This would have nothing to do that you spend more time d!cking on boards than working

    Same tired old rehash :(

    Try and post from a position of knowledge eh?

    By the way you forgot the interview. I charmed the pants off them :D Not literally :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.


  • Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    OMD wrote: »
    Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

    Thats a possibility.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    OMD wrote: »
    Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

    Is that really feasable though? Cuts of 3 billion need to be found (1b capital). Freezing of increments would curtail future liabilities, but doesn't contribute to a reduction of existing expenditure to the levels required.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    Welease wrote: »
    Is that really feasable though? Cuts of 3 billion need to be found (1b capital). Freezing of increments would curtail future liabilities, but doesn't contribute to a reduction of existing expenditure to the levels required.

    I didn't mean it was the only thing, I just meant in terms of the OPs question there wouldn't be more pay cuts. Obviously there will be job losses (natural), reduction in overtime and reductions for current and future pensioners (which really should have been done in last budget). Also the much talked about "efficiency savings"
    There will also have to be tax changes mainly at lower end so probably a reduction in tax bands. Further cuts in social welfare and childrens allowance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    OMD wrote: »
    Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

    The unions should be seeking assurances on both increments and pension levy before the vote if they don't then they have let their members down.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    Rumoured pay cuts of 8% are absolutely miserly if the financially illiterate public sector priveleged class reject the Croker deal.

    There needs to be the following pay cuts made in the next budget.

    <30,000 5%
    30,001-€45,000 7%
    €45,001- 80,000 9%
    €80,001- €110,000 12%
    €110,001- €140,000 15%
    €140,001 onwards 18%

    Thats whats required and needs to be done in Budget 2011 if public sector workers reject the Croke Park deal, for cyring out loud ps workers don't realise how lucky they are.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    OMD wrote: »
    Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

    I was under the impression that increments were already frozen.
    Is this not the case?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,143 ✭✭✭Sarn


    dvpower wrote: »
    I was under the impression that increments were already frozen.
    Is this not the case?

    Increments are not frozen. But not everybody gets them. This would affect the junior staff who would not be at the top of their scale.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    dvpower wrote: »
    I was under the impression that increments were already frozen.
    Is this not the case?

    According to CO posters on this site, the take home pay (might as well use the usual PS payscale, net) for a clerical officer on the CS is €400/week.

    With incriments and paycuts/pension levy, they have lost €9/week.
    2 years ago (again, according to CO posters on this site), the take home pay was €409. Less than a 2% cut.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,143 ✭✭✭Sarn


    I can't imagine the cut was that small. Speaking for myself, taking into account the increment I got, paycut, pension levy and all the other levies/taxes that came in for everyone I'm down just over 18%.

    The fall out should be interesting to see if/when the deal is rejected. To be honest I was amazed that the government had offered that there would be no more pay cuts for the PS.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    all the talk is that there will be a further 8% cut in th next budget if the deal is rejected plus whatever tax reforms are brought in for everyone


    What is the original source for this 'talk' I wonder? This was a front page story in a newspaper recently but then again so was a claim that the Icelandic volcano could go on spewing for years, which though possible presumably seems difficult to predict accurately.

    It is hard to believe that the government would be thinking of a pay cut of another 8 per cent on top of what had gone on given that they sat down and thrashed out a deal with the unions to have no pay cuts for a few years.

    If they feel another 8 per cent paycut is necessary (and God help us all if they do as it means they have given up all hope) then why on earth agree to no paycuts at Croke Park?

    I would presume the source of this is a government official giving a journalist pal a bit of a juicy bone for his Sunday story while sending a "don't fcuk with us" message to the workers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    If they feel another 8 per cent paycut is necessary (and God help us all if they do as it means they have given up all hope) then why on earth agree to no paycuts at Croke Park?

    because savings can be made with reforms and efficiency improvements

    the goverment have said all along if the unions can find the necessary savings elsewhere in the public service they will do it, they cant or wont so all thats left is pay

    without the agreement there wont be any reforms or efficiency improvements so we have to get the savings somehow so its back to cutting wages


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    PeakOutput wrote: »

    the goverment have said all along if the unions can find the necessary savings elsewhere in the public service they will do it, they cant or wont so all thats left is pay


    It is strange situation that the unions are the ones left to find the necessary savings elsewhere considering it's the government's gig.

    It seems unlikely that the government could be so obsequious as you suggest in dealing with the unions on reform and savings elsewhere and then be prepared to come over all John Wayne on an 8 per cent paycut.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    It is strange situation that the unions are the ones left to find the necessary savings elsewhere considering it's the government's gig.

    It seems unlikely that the government could be so obsequious as you suggest in dealing with the unions on reform and savings elsewhere and then be prepared to come over all John Wayne on an 8 per cent paycut.

    well i reckon its because they know that any reforms they come up with has to be approved by the unions anyway or there will be industrial

    so there are 3 ways to procede

    cut their pay and put up with industrial action

    come up with reforms and put up with industrial action

    or tell them to find the reforms and implement them or their pay will be cut and then put up with industrial action

    at least the last way gives the appearance that they are giving the unions every opportunity necessary to work out a solution that they are happy with, so when the industrial action inevitably comes around (as it has) the goverment has maximum public support(which they do)

    now thats just my reading of it but i think it makes sense


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭unit 1


    What on earth are the government at? If as sugested they want savings from the unions or 8% paycut, then why are they making the running with this operation transformation thingy. How can unions make savings if they are'nt in control of the "reform" package, which seems to be a carte blanche for the government.
    Yet again I ask where did this 8% figure come from and is it verifiable from any official government source, or is it a red herring to help nervous union leaders sell this non deal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    unit 1 wrote: »
    Yet again I ask where did this 8% figure come from and is it verifiable from any official government source

    google is your friend


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    well i reckon its because they know that any reforms they come up with has to be approved by the unions anyway or there will be industrial

    so there are 3 ways to procede

    cut their pay and put up with industrial action

    come up with reforms and put up with industrial action

    or tell them to find the reforms and implement them or their pay will be cut and then put up with industrial action

    at least the last way gives the appearance that they are giving the unions every opportunity necessary to work out a solution that they are happy with, so when the industrial action inevitably comes around (as it has) the goverment has maximum public support(which they do)

    now thats just my reading of it but i think it makes sense


    But if the government is concerned about industrial action I would say the last thing they'll want to do is cut wages significantly.

    And I would disagree on your last point. I'm not sure public support comes into it. I think the "public support" the government has a) does not give a rat's ass about apparent fair play to the unions and b) will not carry this support into an election anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    But if the government is concerned about industrial action I would say the last thing they'll want to do is cut wages significantly.

    my point was industrial action is inevitable no matter what happens how they set themselves up to succede in saving the country in the face of this industrial action is important
    And I would disagree on your last point. I'm not sure public support comes into it. I think the "public support" the government has a) does not give a rat's ass about apparent fair play to the unions and b) will not carry this support into an election anyway.

    fianna fail are gone int he next election(rightly so) and im pretty sure they realise this. i also believe that in the mean time they are making an honest effort to get the country back on track and part of this will be the public sector changes. to succede in these changes they need public support to face down the unions because at the end of the day its the public who are going to be affected by the strikes


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    PeakOutput wrote: »

    my point was industrial action is inevitable no matter what happens how they set themselves up to succede in saving the country in the face of this industrial action is important


    Strikes are certainly not inevitable. Mind you if they do happen what good is public support for the government? They will inevitably have to sit down and renegotiate anyway in the end. This is the public service - by definition services which cannot be done without so facing down strikes is a theoretical option only.

    And if the government is interested in saving the country then they need to reconsider the billions they are chucking away in other areas. But it's a bit late for that at this stage I suppose.


Advertisement