Time for Strike Reform?

later12

With public sector pay cuts currently very much on the long finger, and with inflationary pressures still not having much impact on Irish consumers and mortgage holders, is now the appropriate time for an Irish Government to look seriously at reforming how the country goes on strike?

Boris Johnson and David Cameron had a joint article in The Sun of all places this week, outlining the Conervative Party's desire to alter how Unions take strike action on British business. It is their wish to regulate strikes by imposing conditions on minimum voter turnout on any industrial action, among other things. Is now the time that Irish Government did the same, by imposing further conditons on official industrial action before the end of 2011 or 2012, by which time strikes may be a rather more common plague of the business environment?

Welease

As with all things.. it will depend on the detail... until we know what changes are proposed it's difficult to say what could/should be done, and more importantly if Ireland should follow..

20Cent

The right to strike is more important now than ever. No limits should or could be put on it. We still are a democracy after all.

Sand

I dont believe striking is a major issue in the private sector. But the government ought to ban public sector employees from being a member of a trade union, due to the conflict of interest.

sollar

Sand wrote: »

I dont believe striking is a major issue in the private sector. But the government ought to ban public sector employees from being a member of a trade union, due to the conflict of interest.

Even America has public sector unions, as has France, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, UK and so on.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

I dont believe striking is a major issue in the private sector.

And is it a major issue in the public sector?

But the government ought to ban public sector employees from being a member of a trade union, due to the conflict of interest.

That is intemperate tosh. You would need a more substantial case than that to restrict a freedom conferred by the constitution.

doc_17

Sand wrote: »

I dont believe striking is a major issue in the private sector. But the government ought to ban public sector employees from being a member of a trade union, due to the conflict of interest.

If any government were doing its job right then the need to lelislate how strikes are taken should be bottom of the list of things that need doing.

Sand

@sollar

Even America has public sector unions, as has France, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, UK and so on.

Yes, and they have their own issues where the infrastructure of the state has been subverted for personal gain.

@P. Breathnach

And is it a major issue in the public sector?

Passports?

That is intemperate tosh. You would need a more substantial case than that to restrict a freedom conferred by the constitution.

Employment in the public sector is optional. Many rights are restricted to achieve better outcomes - laws against cartels or abuse of monopoly positions for example.

Civil servants and public sector employees are granted certain powers and rights and responsibilities. The understanding is that they will always act in the best interest of the state and the public. Trade union membership confuses that loyalty and responsibility.

Afterall, when the civil servants in the passport office went on strike, who were they using their positions of public trust and responsibility to serve? Their own. The same as when Bertie was getting dig outs from his mates.

Trade unions within the public sector lead to conflicted loyalties, and employment within the public sector is entirely optional. If someone wishes to pursue a career in the public sector, then they ought to do without conflicted loyalties to organisations. It is afterall a country, not a branch of McDonalds. If people want fast food, they can go to any fast food outlet. However, if they want services from their government, say a passport, they cant shop around.

@doc 17

If any government were doing its job right then the need to lelislate how strikes are taken should be bottom of the list of things that need doing.

If the Irish government is going to do its job right, then its going to need to take on the unions. Unions are not going to be happy if the government is doing its job right.

Head The Wall

It says it all when managers and other highly paid staff in the PS feel the need to be in a union. Are they that useless that they can't represent themselves like most salaried staff in the private sector

RobbieTheRobber

Head The Wall wrote: »

It says it all when managers and other highly paid staff in the PS feel the need to be in a union. Are they that useless that they can't represent themselves like most salaried staff in the private sector

Are unions not common in the private sector then?

Count Dooku

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are unions not common in the private sector then?

Not really, because otherwise unions can only destroy all private businesses in Ireland
If you will exclude state owned companies such as banks, ESB, Eircom etc, then very few private companies will have unionised workforce

There are 55 unions affiliated to Congress in 2008 with a total membership of 833,486, of whom 602,035 are in the republic and 231,451 in Northern Ireland.

http://www.ictu.ie/about/affiliates.html

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

@P. Breathnach

Passports?

If you think that is a major issue, rather than an extremely annoying one, you have a different sense of importance than I have.

Employment in the public sector is optional. Many rights are restricted to achieve better outcomes - laws against cartels or abuse of monopoly positions for example.

Civil servants and public sector employees are granted certain powers and rights and responsibilities. The understanding is that they will always act in the best interest of the state and the public. Trade union membership confuses that loyalty and responsibility.

Afterall, when the civil servants in the passport office went on strike, who were they using their positions of public trust and responsibility to serve? Their own. The same as when Bertie was getting dig outs from his mates.

Trade unions within the public sector lead to conflicted loyalties, and employment within the public sector is entirely optional. If someone wishes to pursue a career in the public sector, then they ought to do without conflicted loyalties to organisations. It is afterall a country, not a branch of McDonalds. If people want fast food, they can go to any fast food outlet. However, if they want services from their government, say a passport, they cant shop around.

Still tosh. Conflict of interest or conflicted loyalties happen in all walks of life. Most people deal with them correctly and without difficulty. Here and there, in both the public and private sectors, some people fail to resolve things, and in some cases people contrive to take personal advantage of situations in an inappropriate way. Where people act improperly, that should be dealt with; otherwise, leave them alone.

People employed in the public sector are doing a job, and they have (and should have) the same rights as any other employees.

southsiderosie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are unions not common in the private sector then?

No, due in no small part to interference from anti-union American corporations.

A major problem with Irish trade unions is that through social partnership, they essentially traded away private sector organizing for huge public sector pay increases. This had multiple negative effects. From a fiscal perspective, it was an obvious disaster. But I think it was bad for unions organizationally as well: private sector unions are often less militant about wages because at the end of the day they understand that if they kill the company, they are out of a job. Therefore, they often deal more with workplace safety issues and wage and hour violation-type stuff (the latter of which is a big issue in the service sector, especially for immigrant workers).

However, a politically powerful union combined with a clientelistic political system means that there is no such prudence when it comes to the public sector. Unions don't have to worry about killing the "company" - i.e. the government - because their friends in government will keep shoveling money in their direction and generally acquiesce to wage demands.

Finally, under social partnership, not only was there not wage restraint, but unions were relatively lazy in terms of organizing campaigns. This became especially obvious because of the rapid job growth in the private sector - which unions generally don't organize in.

I don't think that the government should or could put huge limitations on strikes. But I think unions have dug themselves into a very deep hole that they will be lucky to crawl out from: unions with limited, unmotivated membership and few political friends are dead in the water.

RobbieTheRobber

Count Dooku wrote: »

Not really, because otherwise unions can only destroy all private businesses in Ireland
If you will exclude state owned companies such as banks, ESB, Eircom etc, then very few private companies will have unionised workforce


http://www.ictu.ie/about/affiliates.html

Affiliated unions with the ICTU

* ACCORD Not a PS union
* Association of First Division Civil Servants
* Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants
* Association of Irish Traditional Musicians Not a PS union
* Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland
* Association of Teachers and Lecturers
* Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union Not a PS union
* British Actors Equity Association Not a PS union
* Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union Not a PS union
* Building and Allied Trades Unions Not a PS union
* Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Not a PS union
* Civil and Public Services Union
* Communication Workers Union (Ireland) Not a PS union
* Communication Workers Union (UK) Not a PS union
* Electricity Supply Boards Officers Association
* Fire Brigades Union
* GMB Union Not a PS union
* Guinness Staff Union Not a PS union
* Irish Bank Officials' Association Not a PS union
* Irish Federation of University Teachers
* Irish Medical Organisation
* Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union
* Irish National Teachers Organisation
* Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation
* MANDATE Not a PS union
* Medical Laboratory Scientists Association
* National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers
* National Union of Journalists Not a PS union
* National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
* National Union of Sheet Metal Workers of Ireland Not a PS union
* Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance[8]
* Operative Plasterers and Allied Trades Society of Ireland Not a PS union
* Prison Officers' Association (Ireland)
* Prison Officers' Association (Northern Ireland)
* Prospect Not a PS union
* Public and Commercial Services Union
* Public Service Executive Union
* Services Industrial Professional Technical Union Not a PS union
* Society of Radiographers
* Teachers' Union of Ireland
* Technical Engineering and Electrical Union Not a PS union
* Transport Salaried Staffs Association
* Ulster Teachers' Union
* Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians Not a PS union
* Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers Not a PS union
* Unison Not a PS union
* Unite the Union Not a PS union
* University and College Union
* Veterinary Ireland Not a PS union
* Veterinary Officers Association Not a PS union

While membership rates may not be as high as in the public service to say there are no unions for private sector areas would be incorrect.

I have highlighted above which memers of the ICTU are not PS unions, there may be more in that list which i have not marked as not being ps whch also may cover private sector workers.

I would also like to point out that union memberships rates have declined since 2003 and should wages in private sector areas continue to decrease or working conditions deterioraite then I would expect the membership rates to increase. As people may seek the protection offered through unionisation.

southsiderosie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

While membership rates may not be as high as in the public service to say there are no unions for private sector areas would be incorrect.

I have highlighted above which memers of the ICTU are not PS unions, there may be more in that list which i have not marked as not being ps whch also may cover private sector workers.

I would also like to point out that union memberships rates have declined since 2003 and should wages in private sector areas continue to decrease or working conditions deterioraite then I would expect the membership rates to increase. As people may seek the protection offered through unionisation.

A 2010 Irish Times article notes that while overall union membership is 34.3%, public sector membership is 68.7%. Irish union membership is HUGELY skewed towards the public sector.

Rates declined largely because the workforce expanded at a rate faster than union organizing efforts could keep up with. They actually did add members at this time; it's just that the labor force added people faster.

Sand

@P. Breathnach

If you think that is a major issue, rather than an extremely annoying one, you have a different sense of importance than I have.

Its a symptom of the underlying problem. Trade unions conspired to prevent citizens and taxpayers accessing their own government services. Through "social partnership" and political pressure trade unions attempted to subvert the state to serve their own interests rather than interests of the people of the county. I can assure you, the inability to receive passports from their government was a major issue for the citizens of the country seeking one. Perhaps it wasnt for the insiders.

Still tosh.

My, what a compelling argument.

I must be making some progress however, Ive been upgraded from intemperate tosh to plain old vanilla tosh.

People employed in the public sector are doing a job, and they have (and should have) the same rights as any other employees.

People working in the public service arent doing a job just like any other employee however. A Garda is not doing the job of a security guard. They are given exceptional powers and responsibilities to serve the citizens of the country. Theyre not working in McDonalds.

As I noted, you cannot shop around for a passport. The intitutions and servants of the citizens must not have divided loyalties, nor must the institutions and powers of the state be subverted for personal enrichment.

RobbieTheRobber

Sand wrote: »

@P. Breathnach


Its a symptom of the underlying problem. Trade unions conspired to prevent citizens and taxpayers accessing their own government services. Through "social partnership" and political pressure trade unions attempted to subvert the state to serve their own interests rather than interests of the people of the county.

Unions are made up of people from the country
They are not filled with aliens or individuals from foreign entities here to bring about the downfall of the state.

People working in the public service arent doing a job just like any other employee however. A Garda is not doing the job of a security guard. They are given exceptional powers and responsibilities to serve the citizens of the country. Theyre not working in McDonalds.

In your example you use the garda, however I believe the Garda and the Defence forces are prohibited from forming unions and from strike action.

However under the constitution they are free to form associations.

As I noted, you cannot shop around for a passport. The intitutions and servants of the citizens must not have divided loyalties, nor must the institutions and powers of the state be subverted for personal enrichment.

Well that would require a constitutional change because people are allowed to form unions in this country with the above exceptions i already stated.

Edit: You are requiring a change where PS workers are not afforded the same rights as other citizens of the state.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Personal Rights
Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

Sand

@RobbieTheRobber

Unions are made up of people from the country
They are not filled with aliens or individuals from foreign entities here to bring about the downfall of the state.

Yes, and the "golden circle" was also made up of people from the country, who werent aliens or individuals from foreign entities here to bring about the downfall of the state. Just people co-operating to personally enrich themselves at the expense of other citizens and the state in general.

In your example you use the garda, however I believe the Garda and the Defence forces are prohibited from forming unions and from strike action.

Great, so its just the extension of an existing principle?

Well that would require a constitutional change because people are allowed to form unions in this country with the above exceptions i already stated.

I dont think a constitutional ammendment would be too difficult to achieve - we can just get Begg, O Connor and Horan out against it. Ought to ensure an easy passage.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Public sector workers should be allowed to be in an union I suppose but no way should they be allowed to strike. The US has a law against this, Reagan fired nearly 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike in 1981. In his words:

But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5JSToyiyr8

That's how it should be done.

Of course, our government don't have the balls to actually stand up to our PS unions. The Economist had this topic as a leader last week if anyone didn't read it: http://www.economist.com/node/17851305

RobbieTheRobber

Sand wrote: »

@RobbieTheRobber


Yes, and the "golden circle" was also made up of people from the country, who werent aliens or individuals from foreign entities here to bring about the downfall of the state. Just people co-operating to personally enrich themselves at the expense of other citizens and the state in general.

Indeed, are you accusing the Ps of similiar transgressions as this "Golden circle" group?

Great, so its just the extension of an existing principle?

However we should note that refusing people the membership of unions does stop the Individuals in question from persuing other legal means to represent their dissatisfaction with their working conditions or contract. The blue flu being an example!

To stop them from doing that we would have to strip many of our citizens of much of their constitutional rights.
I would suggest under your terms we would need to go so far as to remove their right to vote as by voting they would be in some form or other expressing their political allegiance.
So essentially you are calling for all public servants to be stripped of citizenship. We would then need to create a new social status for them perhaps we could refer to them as slaves.

I dont think a constitutional ammendment would be too difficult to achieve - we can just get Begg, O Connor and Horan out against it. Ought to ensure an easy passage.

Who would promote such a change.
The present government, who are held equally as high as begg, O'Connor, etc?

paul71

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People employed in the public sector are doing a job, and they have (and should have) the same rights as any other employees.

Except it appears the right to lose their jobs by forcing their employer into liquidation by going on strike. Lets face it PS can go on strike because they know they have a job to go back to when the strike is over, most people in the private while having the legal right to strike cannot in practice because their company would be forced into liquidation by strike action.

Sand

Indeed, are you accusing the Ps of similiar transgressions as this "Golden circle" group?

Yes, they were certainly a contributing factor to the benchmarking debacle, and the ineptitude of the DoF, FR and CB. Were they the evil masterminds? No. But the culture of personal enrichment at the expense of the state and the citizens is as damaging when pursued by the civil service as when it is pursued by politicians or bankers.

However we should note that refusing people the membership of unions does stop the Individuals in question from persuing other legal means to represent their dissatisfaction with their working conditions or contract.

*Exactly*.

Which makes it clear youre engaging in hysteria with this further bit:

So essentially you are calling for all public servants to be stripped of citizenship. We would then need to create a new social status for them perhaps we could refer to them as slaves.

:rolleyes:

Who would promote such a change.
The present government, who are held equally as high as begg, O'Connor, etc?

A government interested in addressing the root causes of poor Irish governance?

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Sand wrote: »

@P. Breathnach

Passports?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you think that is a major issue, rather than an extremely annoying one, you have a different sense of importance than I have.

@P Breathnach, do you work in the public sector by any chance? Because I don't know why you'd have sympathy for passport office workers striking with the unemployment rate so high, looking for higher pay. And people not being able to get passports to go on holidays when they pay their tax money.

It is a big deal! That's your money paying for these workers to go on strike. How does that not annoy you?

RobbieTheRobber

georgiecasey wrote: »

@P Breathnach, do you work in the public sector by any chance? Because I don't know why you'd have sympathy for passport office workers striking with the unemployment rate so high, looking for higher pay. And people not being able to get passports to go on holidays when they pay their tax money.

It is a big deal! That's your money paying for these workers to go on strike. How does that not annoy you?

They did not strike in the passport office and they were also not looking for additional pay.

thebman

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you think that is a major issue, rather than an extremely annoying one, you have a different sense of importance than I have.

Its more than an annoying issue if you needed a passport, it cost many people money on plane tickets and businesses money on business trips which had to be re-organised/cancelled etc...

I think that is the problem with the public sector, that service is performed by the state for a reason. If the state employee's don't want to do it then privatise it where possible IMO.

If people want to know why there are people in favor of the state being involved in as few areas as possible then this is the reason.

It is more often than not abused for invested interests when left to the state, when multiple private entities have to compete for business, they cannot afford to take the p*** like the passport workers did.

The private sector has its own issues but rarely does it result in a complete closure of services because the staff got out of the wrong side of the bed in the morning.

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People employed in the public sector are doing a job, and they have (and should have) the same rights as any other employees.

A lot of public servants don't have right for strike, why not to spread it over whole public sector or take measures to leave right for strike only in areas where there is no monopoly of state on services?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So essentially you are calling for all public servants to be stripped of citizenship. We would then need to create a new social status for them perhaps we could refer to them as slaves.

Do you mean that removal some of privileges of aristocracy in public sector due state monopoly on some services will create new social status like "former aristocrat with still job for life "?
:rolleyes:

RobbieTheRobber

Count Dooku wrote: »

A lot of public servants don't have right for strike, why not to spread it over whole public sector or take measures to leave right for strike only in areas where there is no monopoly of state on services?



Do you mean that removal some of privileges of aristocracy in public sector due state monopoly on some services will create new social status like "former aristocrat with still job for life "?
:rolleyes:

This job for life where is that stated?
I would assume that normal work conditions prevail.

You are suggesting that civil servants get treated differently to other citizens not me, I am suggesting they be treated the same.

It is you who would create them as a special class with their own status. I would keep the status quo whereby members of the Public service are treated as any other citizen, becasue well we are just cirizens we are no different!

We are entitled to the same freedoms and liberties that all other citizens of the republic are entitled, alll of these rights for all citizens are protected under section 40 of the constitution.

Welease

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This job for life where is that stated?
I would assume that normal work conditions prevail.

"Labour Court Chairman Kevin Duffy also says that health staff belonging to the IMPACT trade union should continue to enjoy guarantees of jobs for life contained in a Framework Agreement concluded in 2004 when the HSE was set up."

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/06/union-wins-on-jobs-for-life.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0505/pay.html

RobbieTheRobber

Welease wrote: »

"Labour Court Chairman Kevin Duffy also says that health staff belonging to the IMPACT trade union should continue to enjoy guarantees of jobs for life contained in a Framework Agreement concluded in 2004 when the HSE was set up."

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/06/union-wins-on-jobs-for-life.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0505/pay.html

Wonderful that he states it, but for there to be a "jobs for life" it would have to be written into law, otherwise it is just a phrasing and has no real meaning.

Are you suggesting that no one can be sacked from the HSE?
This one lady seems to have been sacked so that would seem to go against the idea of a job for life surely?
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hse-apologises-to-family-as-abusive-nurse-sacked-1770981.html

Can you give me something more concrete, like perhaps where someone explains what they mean when stating a job for life?

Your links also relate to the HSE not the overall PS, can you link me to the piece of legislation that ensures PS staff a job for life?
As I would feel without some legal assurance how could i possibly be guaranteed a job for life, under what right do i get this privilege.

It would be great to know i had a job for life, regardless of what I do!

later12

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you suggesting that no one can be sacked from the HSE?
This one lady seems to have been sacked so that would seem to go against the idea of a job for life surely?
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hse-apologises-to-family-as-abusive-nurse-sacked-1770981.html

The fact that you would actually pull out a newspaper article that highlights that someone in the public sector got fired (!) sort of says it all.

This sort of thing happens every day in Irish business. It is an extremely rare event in the public sector. Getting fired is part of life in the private sector, in the public sector it would be quite the accomplishment, it's probably something that would be remembered for years ( I say that as someone who has worked, briefly, in the public sector and heard about it happening to a former employee years before).

RobbieTheRobber

later10 wrote: »

The fact that you would actually pull out a newspaper article that highlights that someone in the public sector got fired (!) sort of says it all.

This sort of thing happens every day in Irish business. It is an extremely rare event in the public sector. Getting fired is part of life in the private sector, in the public sector it would be quite the accomplishment, it's probably something that would be remembered for years ( I say that as someone who has worked, briefly, in the public sector and heard about it happening to a former employee years before).

While you have crafted a wonderful fairytale, the truth is much more boring isnt it.

When presented with claims of a job for life, i searched for these search terms sacked HSE.
From those terms i took the first result from google to illustrate how a claim of "jobs for life" is factually incorrect as shown by my presentation of evidence to opposite happening.
Seeing as this is what happpened i think this is a fairer assesment than yours.

Had i not linked to evidence what do you believe would have been the likely response to my refutals of the claims of "a job for life"?

Welease

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Wonderful that he states it, but for there to be a "jobs for life" it would have to be written into law, otherwise it is just a phrasing and has no real meaning.

Are you suggesting that no one can be sacked from the HSE?
This one lady seems to have been sacked so that would seem to go against the idea of a job for life surely?
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hse-apologises-to-family-as-abusive-nurse-sacked-1770981.html

Can you give me something more concrete, like perhaps where someone explains what they mean when stating a job for life?

Your links also relate to the HSE not the overall PS, can you link me to the piece of legislation that ensures PS staff a job for life?
As I would feel without some legal assurance how could i possibly be guaranteed a job for life, under what right do i get this privilege.

It would be great to know i had a job for life, regardless of what I do!

I'm not getting into one of those rediculous PS vs Anti PS arguements. Nor do I have any interest in trawling through tons of websites to find each and every departments contractual obligations..

You asked where it stated workers had jobs for life..

I have shown you where the HSE enjoy that right.. A right that was tested in the labour court and upheld (as linked previously)..

The framework agreement for the HSE lays it out clearly..
http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/pub/health/framework.pdf

"4. Job Security
Staff are guaranteed security of employment on transferring to the HSE. The parties agree that the term “permanent and pensionable” will be construed as conferring an entitlement on transferred staff to remain in their employment until they reach the retirement age stated in their contract save in the case of dismissal in accordance with agreed disciplinary procedures"

A dismissal such as you linked to is a diversion on your part, and catered for as part of the agreement.. Laws do not need to be passed for this to happen as you suggest, its part of their contract, and as previously stated has been upheld by the labour courts..

As I said, I'm not going to get into a rediculous arguement on this.. You asked for the facts.. there they are in black and white..

Count Dooku

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Wonderful that he states it, but for there to be a "jobs for life" it would have to be written into law, otherwise it is just a phrasing and has no real meaning.

unless if it is not ruling of court, which covers areas not covered by law

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you suggesting that no one can be sacked from the HSE?
This one lady seems to have been sacked so that would seem to go against the idea of a job for life surely?
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hse-apologises-to-family-as-abusive-nurse-sacked-1770981.html

Can you give me something more concrete, like perhaps where someone explains what they mean when stating a job for life?

Do you mean that "jobs for life" must cover crime within public sector aristocracy?
What about compulsory redundancies?
btw, it is not easy to fire pubic servant, because usually it will require decision of cabinet
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0626/1224273368340.html?via=mr

A LANDLORD who was found to have three adults and an 18-month-old baby living in a garden shed heated by an oven has been sacked from his job as a garda over his property dealings. Kevin Galvin, who is in his 30s and lives in Furry Park Road, Killester, north Dublin, was a member of An Garda Síochána working in information technology at Garda Headquarters, Phoenix Park, Dublin. His dismissal from the force was approved by Cabinet in recent weeks and has since come into effect.

later12

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Had i not linked to evidence what do you believe would have been the likely response to my refutals of the claims of "a job for life"?

Exactly the response that you are getting regardless: that you're quite wrong.

A Nurse may have been fired from the HSE for her abuse of a patient in her care, and this may have made the papers, but it doesn't really change anything. It is extremely rare to be fired from the public sector. Another poster has already shown you the contractual provision of job security within the HSE. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could disagree on the issue of public sector job security.

RobbieTheRobber

Welease wrote: »

I'm not getting into one of those rediculous PS vs Anti PS arguements. Nor do I have any interest in trawling through tons of websites to find each and every departments contractual obligations..

I think that your in quite the wrong thread and perhaps the wrong forum if you have no intention of doing as you say.

You asked where it stated workers had jobs for life..

I have shown you where the HSE enjoy that right.. A right that was tested in the labour court and upheld (as linked previously)..

The framework agreement for the HSE lays it out clearly..
http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/pub/health/framework.pdf

4. Job Security
Staff are guaranteed security of employment on transferring to the HSE. The parties agree that the term “permanent and pensionable” will be construed as conferring an entitlement on transferred staff to remain in their employment until they reach the retirement age stated in their contract save in the case of dismissal in accordance with
agreed disciplinary procedures

The above states that a person has a job unless they are sacked, that is hardly an assurance.
How does one usually end a term of employment, which has not been enacted for a set period of time (ie a 12 month coontract)?
I can think of three methods

1. They quit
2. They are sacked - or dismissed
3. they retire

That is not a guarantee but simply stating the bleeding obvious, a person is not likely to be sacked unless the are dismissed.

A dismissal such as you linked to is a diversion on your part, and catered for as part of the agreement.. Laws do not need to be passed for this to happen as you suggest, its part of their contract, and as previously stated has been upheld by the labour courts..

Here is another result from the same searxh that states 34 people sacked in a 5 year period.
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/may/24/hse-sacked-or-suspended-34-staff-members-in-last-f/
#Not a Job for Life

As I said, I'm not going to get into a rediculous arguement on this.. You asked for the facts.. there they are in black and white..

You are quite right it is ridiculous, but you are wrong about the black and white. For it to be black and white it would have to be stated that under no circumstances can an employees term of employment be terminated without their acceptance.

RobbieTheRobber

later10 wrote: »

Exactly the response that you are getting regardless: that you're quite wrong.

A Nurse may have been fired from the HSE for her abuse of a patient in her care, and this may have made the papers, but it doesn't really change anything. It is extremely rare to be fired from the public sector. Another poster has already shown you the contractual provision of job security within the HSE. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could disagree on the issue of public sector job security.

No they havent I have dealt with that claim in my previous post.


While I wont argue there is an element of job security to state that I have a job for life is a distortion of the facts.
Also the HSE is merely one part of the overall PS and i have not been shown anything about those areas, so perhaps we could restate it as;

A person shall have a job for life in the HSE unless they are dismissed!

Are you further trying to tell me that if the government was to introduce compuslory redundancy within the PS I would be protected by the courts?

RobbieTheRobber

Count Dooku wrote: »

unless if it is not ruling of court, which covers areas not covered by law

What?

Do you mean that "jobs for life" must cover crime within public sector aristocracy?
What about compulsory redundancies?
btw, it is not easy to fire pubic servant, because usually it will require decision of cabinet
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0626/1224273368340.html?via=mr

I do not kow the working of the garda or all the laws but as the arm of the state that protects the peace, there are certain legal obligations that apply to the garda this is not PS wide.
Further that article simply states the cabinet approoved it this may have been due to media profile of the case and so was raised at cabinet level becasue of its importance. No where in that article dooes it state it was a required step.
Are you trying to suggest that all sackings in the wider public service require cabinet decision?

Welease

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I think that your in quite the wrong thread and perhaps the wrong forum if you have no intention of doing as you say.



The above states that a person has a job unless they are sacked, that is hardly an assurance.
How does one usually end a term of employment, which has not been enacted for a set period of time (ie a 12 month coontract)?
I can think of three methods

1. They quit
2. They are sacked - or dismissed
3. they retire

That is not a guarantee but simply stating the bleeding obvious, a person is not likely to be sacked unless the are dismissed.






Here is another result from the same searxh that states 34 people sacked in a 5 year period.
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/may/24/hse-sacked-or-suspended-34-staff-members-in-last-f/
#Not a Job for Life





You are quite right it is ridiculous, but you are wrong about the black and white. For it to be black and white it would have to be stated that under no circumstances can an employees term of employment be terminated without their acceptance.

They can only be sacked for disciplinary offences. Disciplinary dismissal is completely different from other forms of contract termination such as redundancy etc.. The 34 you linked to were, again all disciplinary offences..

But I suspect you know this.. but once again its more important to defend an entrenched position that to understand the facts for what they are..

As I said, the information is there in black and white.. If you refuse to acknowledge it.. fine.. the unions acknowledge it, the government acknowledges it, and when tested the labour courts acknowledged it..

You requested the information... it's been linked..

RobbieTheRobber

Welease wrote: »

They can only be sacked for disciplinary offences. Disciplinary dismissal is completely different from other forms of contract termination such as redundancy etc.. The 34 you linked to were, again all disciplinary offences..

But I suspect you know this.. but once again its more important to defend an entrenched position that to understand the facts for what they are..

As I said, the information is there in black and white.. If you refuse to acknowledge it.. fine.. the unions acknowledge it, the government acknowledges it, and when tested the labour courts acknowledged it..

You requested the information... it's been linked..

A nugget of truth wrapped in lies.

As of today, how many redundancies have been made in the HSE?
Or even in the Overall PS?

How many has the government sought?

These are the reasons an individual may be dealt with under the discipinary process in the HSE
Examples of conduct which may lead to disciplinary action under this
procedure include:
n Persistent poor timekeeping
n Unsatisfactory attendance record
n Poor work standards
n Breach of health and safety rules
n Bullying, harassment or sexual harassment (following a complaint being
upheld under the Dignity at Work Policy)
n Breach of internet/e-mail policy and other electronic communications policy
n Refusal to obey reasonable instructions
n Negligence
n Abuse of patient/client

http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/HR/Disciplinary_Procedure_for_Employees_of_HSE.pdf

So seeing as the state has not sough any redundancies the only way we could see terminations is for disciplinary reasons.
Or perhaps you can provide me with other reasons why a person who is performing their job as contracted should be dismissed?
(I believe without any assurances from that doc that normal labour laws would also assure a person of employment).

RobbieTheRobber

here is the unfair dismissal act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0010/index.html

Here is the tersm of employment act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0005/print.html

Welease

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

A nugget of truth wrapped in lies.

Excuse me???? You have some cheek accusing me of lying...

You asked the question about where was it written that workers had a "job for life".. I linked to the relevant section of the HSE framework agreement from Impact's own site.. I also linked to the Irish Medical Journal and RTE who covered the comments from the labour court on said framework.

Just because it doesn't suit your arguement is not my problem and absolutely no reason to accuse my of lying. The facts are there, if you didnt want them posted then don't ask for them.

http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/pub/health/framework.pdf

"4. Job Security
Staff are guaranteed security of employment on transferring to the HSE. The parties agree that the term “permanent and pensionable” will be construed as conferring an entitlement on transferred staff to remain in their employment until they reach the retirement age stated in their contract save in the case of dismissal in accordance with agreed disciplinary procedures."


"The Minister for Health has stated that if the HSE was a private company, people would have lost their jobs over the most recent scandals in the health service. Last weekend, Mary Harney conceded that it “hugely antagonises and annoys the public” that no one was ever seen to be fired for not doing their job, but that job security was a feature of the public service."
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/editorial/2010/06/hse-jobs-for-life.html

"In his recommendation, Chairman of the Labour Court, Kevin Duffy, said IMPACT should continue to enjoy guarantees of permanent, pensionable jobs for life contained in a 2004 agreement. "
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/union-told-to-end-crippling-industrial-action-at-hse-2166612.html

not yet

Sand wrote: »

I dont believe striking is a major issue in the private sector. But the government ought to ban public sector employees from being a member of a trade union, due to the conflict of interest.

Sweet jesus.................next you'll be saying ban people over 50 voting.

cursai

later10 wrote: »

With public sector pay cuts currently very much on the long finger, and with inflationary pressures still not having much impact on Irish consumers and mortgage holders, is now the appropriate time for an Irish Government to look seriously at reforming how the country goes on strike?

Boris Johnson and David Cameron had a joint article in The Sun of all places this week, outlining the Conervative Party's desire to alter how Unions take strike action on British business. It is their wish to regulate strikes by imposing conditions on minimum voter turnout on any industrial action, among other things. Is now the time that Irish Government did the same, by imposing further conditons on official industrial action before the end of 2011 or 2012, by which time strikes may be a rather more common plague of the business environment?

The long finger!!!!!!! Are we in the same country. Thats actually offensive!

RobbieTheRobber

Welease wrote: »

"The Minister for Health has stated that if the HSE was a private company, people would have lost their jobs over the most recent scandals in the health service. Last weekend, Mary Harney conceded that it “hugely antagonises and annoys the public” that no one was ever seen to be fired for not doing their job, but that job security was a feature of the public service."
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/editorial/2010/06/hse-jobs-for-life.html

I believe the disciplinary process I quoted above would have allowed for individuals who failed to perform to be dealt with under that, so I am accusing the minister of lying. I believe she had the power to seek sackings as long as they conformed to the employment terms act and did not breach the unfair dismissals act.

later12

cursai wrote: »

The long finger!!!!!!! Are we in the same country. Thats actually offensive!

Public sector pay cuts are on the long finger. No we're probably not in the same country. No that is not offensive. Anything else?

RobbieTheRobber

So seeing as the state has not sought any redundancies the only way we could see terminations is for disciplinary reasons.
Or perhaps anyone can provide me with other reasons why a person who is performing their job as contracted should be dismissed?

cursai

later10 wrote: »

Public sector pay cuts are on the long finger. No we're probably not in the same country. No that is not offensive. Anything else?

Pension levies, allowances cut, etc.. get your facts right!these are cuts in pay, you shouldn't make untrue statements to reinforce your argument!
In the real world thats not in the tabloid newspaper there are plenty of cuts across pay.

paul71

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So seeing as the state has not sought any redundancies the only way we could see terminations is for disciplinary reasons.
Or perhaps anyone can provide me with other reasons why a person who is performing their job as contracted should be dismissed?

The reason the state is not seeking redundancies is because the Government which tries to introduce them fears losing the votes of those made redundant and their colleagues in the PS dominanted unions.

In the private sector when technology efficiency comes into play the staff are made redundant. In the PS these efficiencies are either ignored or new jobs are invented for them.

paul71

cursai wrote: »

Pension levies, allowances cut, etc.. get your facts right!these are cuts in pay, you shouldn't make untrue statements to reinforce your argument!
In the real world thats not in the tabloid newspaper there are plenty of cuts across pay.

Unreceipted allowances are not pay, they are government sanctioned theft from the taxpayer.

Count Dooku

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I believe the disciplinary process I quoted above would have allowed for individuals who failed to perform to be dealt with under that, so I am accusing the minister of lying. I believe she had the power to seek sackings as long as they conformed to the employment terms act and did not breach the unfair dismissals act.

Do you have statistic how many PS workers have been supended for not doing their job properly, not for criminal offences?
BTW, from you link

Of the 89 people suspended from their positions over a five-year period the vast majority – 72 employees – were paid while the rest went unpaid or partly paid.

RobbieTheRobber

paul71 wrote: »

The reason the state is not seeking redundancies is because the Government which tries to introduce them fears losing the votes of those made redundant and their colleagues in the PS dominanted unions.

In the private sector when technology efficiency comes into play the staff are made redundant. In the PS these efficiencies are either ignored or new jobs are invented for them.

Wonderful insight pauul that wasn't my question though!
I will restate it below.

Perhaps you can provide me reasons why a person who is performing their job as contracted should be dismissed?