Croke Park Agreement....will it work?

flowers

I just wanted to pick peoples heads in relation to the croke park agreement in so far as your opinion on it, do you think it will work out or not?

not yet

I'll start us of.....

Tear it up,sack 60,000 Public servants and impose 40% pay cuts on the rest, hey presto problem solved. Oh and no pay increases till 2050.

ardmacha

Not yet, thanks for a typical boards restrained response.

OP, define "work". It will streamline public service and sweep away a lot of accumulated practices that needed to go. It will allow people to be directed to where they are most needed.

It will not by itself solve the public finance problem as this is not mainly caused by the PS but by a dysfunctional tax system, excessive unemployment and giving money to banks.

MagicSean

It won't work. The government won't bring in any changes because they don't want to cross the unions or upper management. The unions are too pig-headed and lazy to bring in any changes. The management won't bring in changes because they will lose out. The low level workers can't bring in any changes without support of one of the other groups. The only way anything will be fixed is if the unions are gotten rid of and a proper method of consultation between workers and government is set up.

Dannyboy83

If we could find a way to magically generate an extra 20-30 billion net profit per year, potentially.

Otherwise, no.

not yet

ardmacha wrote: »

Not yet, thanks for a typical boards restrained response.

OP, define "work". It will streamline public service and sweep away a lot of accumulated practices that needed to go. It will allow people to be directed to where they are most needed.

It will not by itself solve the public finance problem as this is not mainly caused by the PS but by a dysfunctional tax system, excessive unemployment and giving money to banks.

I was being sarcastic and getting in before all the PS bashers.

sarumite

not yet wrote: »

I was being sarcastic and getting in before all the PS bashers.

Ooh....I can play that game. No it shouldnt work as the public sector is perfect and doesn't need to be changed. Tax payers who are not happy with how their taxes are being spent are just anti-Ps begrudgers.....

Now for genuine comment.

I will remain cautious about the prospect of it working, though I hope it does. I realise my comment is situating myself firmly on the fence, but I am going to wait before any conclusions.

thebman

k_mac wrote: »

It won't work. The government won't bring in any changes because they don't want to cross the unions or upper management. The unions are too pig-headed and lazy to bring in any changes. The management won't bring in changes because they will lose out. The low level workers can't bring in any changes without support of one of the other groups. The only way anything will be fixed is if the unions are gotten rid of and a proper method of consultation between workers and government is set up.

This!!

Most likely, the EU/IMF will tell them to tear it up in the end anyway as it won't get anywhere near the savings it says it will achieve which probably won't be enough anyway.

RichardAnd

not yet wrote: »

I'll start us of.....

Tear it up,sack 60,000 Public servants and impose 40% pay cuts on the rest, hey presto problem solved. Oh and no pay increases till 2050.

I think boards.ie wrote the book on pulling figures out of one's backside.

To the original topic, it is my sincere opinion that the CP deal will produce savings but I am almost certain they will not be of the scale needed. I also think the CP was never really meant to be a solution and rather, it was more of a time filler to keep PS workers quiet, avert strikes and generally kick the can up the road.

Now, that being said, I also don't buy into the mantra of these boards that it is a total loss. Let's not forget, the CP deal wasn't raised as an issue for review under the terms of the bail out. The IMF and the EU must see something in it to allow it time to prove its worth otherwise, I would imagine its removal would be a prerequisite to the deal. There are many ways to save money but, in my opinion, I don't believe that the CP deal will work without, at the least, pay being looked at.

I do greatly wish, however, that the problem with the public sector bill can be resolved without any compulsory redundancies. I have friend and family a plenty in the civil service and I do not wish to see any of them to loose their jobs. So my hopes pinned upon this working out without dole queues getting longer but the rational side of my mind is telling me this may be a fallacy.


On a side note, I raised this issue some weeks ago. The thread link is below if anyone would like to read it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70644337

Godge

You are unlikely to get rational answers to this question. Part of that is because the question is vague. What do you mean by whether the CPA will work? There are a number of different perspectives on what is meant by it working. Here are a few:

Will it result in hardship for public servants?
Will it mean public servants can get away with pretending to change and protect their salaries, terms and conditions?
Will it mean more pay cuts for public servants?
Will it result in longer working hours and shorter holidays for public servants?
Will it result in the public service pay bill being cut by enough to save me paying more taxes?
Will it save me from social welfare cuts or a property tax?
Will it divert attention from my cosseted private sector service sector (doctor, dentist, pharmacy, accountant, lawyer)?
Will it mean better services for the public at the same or lower costs?
Will it solve the banking issue?
Can more public servants be fired (or at least hung in public)?
Can my school/university/hospital/council that I work in keep under the radar and avoid major change?


A lot of people will look at it from one of the above perspectives. All of them to me are wrong. The only question that should be asked is whether it will result in public servants, as recipients of public money, make their fair share of contribution to the changes necessary to save the country, be they teachers, nurses, guards or back-up admin services, and that fair share take account of the fact that they pay taxes and that the burden should be shared with taxpayers, social welfare recipients, bank employees and sheltered private sector services.

To give an example, teachers have little direct responsibility for the state of the country compared to say bank officials (even relatively junior ones) who could have shouted stop. Why then, should voluntary redundancy terms be more generous for bank staff than teachers?

femur61

Not if the unions have their way. Hopefully when the EU/IMF won't give any money because they haven't produced any cost savings. Think they have till September. In the SINDO there was an article about IMF/EU investigating PS pay.

beeftotheheels

Godge wrote: »

Can more public servants be fired (or at least hung in public)?

I know we all like to engage in a bit of public sector bashing every now and again but should we at least accept that they are people who may deserve to be "hanged" by the neck until dead for dereliction of duty, but they are not vegetables or animals (which they can resemble on occasion) which one might have "hung" up in the shed.

I agree a teacher was probably less involved in this mess than a low level bank official, but aren't those employed by the Department of Finance also public sector workers? Couldn't they have yelled stop a little louder???

Leaving aside the fact that you are clearly not an English teacher by your choice of language above, what do you understand by the word "cosseted"?

Private sector employees lack the job security and pension security of the public sector. Our pensions will be defined contribution at best, almost never defined benefit as it is for public servants, and our employers can walk away from their pension liabilities despite the fact that we may have contributed significantly more than 5% of our income into the fund for years. We are not subject to benchmarking, and we are not supported by unions. Cosseted?

Godge

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I know we all like to engage in a bit of public sector bashing every now and again but should we at least accept that they are people who may deserve to be "hanged" by the neck until dead for dereliction of duty, but they are not vegetables or animals (which they can resemble on occasion) which one might have "hung" up in the shed.

I agree a teacher was probably less involved in this mess than a low level bank official, but aren't those employed by the Department of Finance also public sector workers? Couldn't they have yelled stop a little louder???

Leaving aside the fact that you are clearly not an English teacher by your choice of language above, what do you understand by the word "cosseted"?

Private sector employees lack the job security and pension security of the public sector. Our pensions will be defined contribution at best, almost never defined benefit as it is for public servants, and our employers can walk away from their pension liabilities despite the fact that we may have contributed significantly more than 5% of our income into the fund for years. We are not subject to benchmarking, and we are not supported by unions. Cosseted?

Private sector employees compare themselves to public sector employees and feel hard done by. Public sector employees compare themselves to the private sector and feel hard done by. Both are correct. Why?

Because the private sector doesn't only consist of employees. There are business owners, there are self-employed lawyers, accountants, pharmacists, doctors and dentists who are working in sectors protected from competition and protected by high public service contracts. Before the recession, this group also included electricians, plumbers and bricklayers. Unfortunately, while we all need a doctor, dentist, pharmacist, lawyer (for divorce, wills) or accountant (to file for bankruptcy), we don't need lots of new houses any more.


The ire of public sector and private sector employees should more correctly be directed at those sectors that have been protected from competition.


P.S. Who says I am not an English teacher because of the language I used. I had thought that on boards, a certain liberty was allowed in respect of language but not txtspk, so that was a bit unfair.

beeftotheheels

Godge wrote: »

The ire of public sector and private sector employees should more correctly be directed at those sectors that have been protected from competition.

I'm not sure what sector, other than the public sector, is protected from competition?

Can I set up in competition with my local pharmacy without employing a pharmacist? No. Is that to protect the pharmacy from competition? Or is it to ensure that someone who did leaving cert biology doesn't accidentally hand out lethal cocktails of drugs they don't understand? The only "protection" from competition that the professions have is that you have to be a member of that profession to engage in it which is as much about controlling standards and protecting consumers as it is about "protecting" the profession from competition.

You will note from the above example that while not a pharmacist, I could open a pharmacy if I employed a pharmacist. I could open an accountancy practice if I employed an accountant or decided to qualify as an accountant myself. This is nothing to do with competition.

Yes the barriers to market access are high but the height of those barriers serves to protect consumers as well as the profession. The height of those barriers is in part created by the professional indemnity insurance providers which again is about protecting consumers in that if you had an unqualified, uninsured accountant do your books and swindle you out of your life's savings you would be in a pretty bad position. If he's qualified, while that provides no guarantee that he is honest, it does provide a level of comfort that he is competent. And if he is insured then that provides a level of comfort that you won't end up out of pocket. His regulatory body through which he qualified will require him to be insured so you as a consumer are protected.

Godge wrote: »

P.S. Who says I am not an English teacher because of the language I used. I had thought that on boards, a certain liberty was allowed in respect of language but not txtspk, so that was a bit unfair.

I'm a newbie so please forgive me. I thought that using the English language in a manner which implied that public servants were "things" rather than "people" could be interpreted as being offensive. In future I will ignore such offensive inferences and recognize your right to use and misuse the English language as you see fit. The one problem with this is that if people are allowed to use words which carry implications that they may or may not intend, how is one supposed to know when the offensive implication is intended?

RobbieTheRobber

Reports are due in May from what I know and so far the CPA has met all its deadlines.

RichardAnd

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Reports are due in May from what I know and so far the CPA has met all its deadlines.

Have you got a source for this? If this is true, it's good news as it means we won't have to see more unemployment.

deise blue

RichardAnd wrote: »

Have you got a source for this? If this is true, it's good news as it means we won't have to see more unemployment.

There 's a good overview on www.impact.ie , if you follow the link for the Croke Park Agreement & then click on the sub heading " Croke Park delivers on costs & reforms " the detail is there ( it also includes a further link to the implementation body report ).

Both the Union report ( naturally enough I suppose ! ) & the implementation body report are quite encouraging.

th3 s1aught3r

not yet wrote: »

I'll start us of.....

Tear it up,sack 60,000 Public servants and impose 40% pay cuts on the rest, hey presto problem solved. Oh and no pay increases till 2050.

Why are you not minister for finance/public sector reform :pac:

RichardAnd

deise blue wrote: »

There 's a good overview on www.impact.ie , if you follow the link for the Croke Park Agreement & then click on the sub heading " Croke Park delivers on costs & reforms " the detail is there ( it also includes a further link to the implementation body report ).

Both the Union report ( naturally enough I suppose ! ) & the implementation body report are quite encouraging.

Hmm, I'm not sure impact can be trusted as I am a former public sector worker and I have little good to say about then. How and ever, I doubt they would lie out rightly about the CPA so I call this good news.

Regardless of the fairness of the CPA, I do want to see it working.

Jaysoose

RichardAnd wrote: »

Hmm, I'm not sure impact can be trusted as I am a former public sector worker and I have little good to say about then. How and ever, I doubt they would lie out rightly about the CPA so I call this good news.

Regardless of the fairness of the CPA, I do want to see it working.

Two years later we have *500 existing public servants moving into the dept of social welfare and this is viewed as a victory? where are the increased efficencies? were is the 'natural wastage'? The CPA is the biggest stroke ever pulled by the unions as it insulated a certain group of society from the economic reality faced by the country. Anybody commenting on this is called a public servant basher and the unions stick their fingers in their ears and keep shouting "begrudger".

*alledgedly

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

Two years later we have *500 existing public servants moving into the dept of social welfare and this is viewed as a victory? where are the increased efficencies? were is the 'natural wastage'? The CPA is the biggest stroke ever pulled by the unions as it insulated a certain group of society from the economic reality faced by the country. Anybody commenting on this is called a public servant basher and the unions stick their fingers in their ears and keep shouting "begrudger".

*alledgedly

its probably 500 Impact members moving, bearing in mind Impact are not the only PS union.

Rabidlamb

Jaysoose wrote: »

The CPA is the biggest stroke ever pulled by the unions as it insulated a certain group of society from the economic reality faced by the country.

True that, one of the final favours carried out by their social partners, FF.
The dogs in the street know the IMF will force the governments hand on PS pay cuts by next December.
Refusing to give up banking time & empire days only strengthens the IMF position.
The realisation that grade increases have continued at the time of nation emergency pay freeze ridicules the CPA.
If you gave the PS bullets they'd manage to shoot themselves twice.

RichardAnd

Rabidlamb wrote: »

True that, one of the final favours carried out by their social partners, FF.
The dogs in the street know the IMF will force the governments hand on PS pay cuts by next December.
Refusing to give up banking time & empire days only strengthens the IMF position.
The realisation that grade increases have continued at the time of nation emergency pay freeze ridicules the CPA.
If you gave the PS bullets they'd manage to shoot themselves twice.

The removal of bank time wouln't make an iota of difference in terms of savings. And what on earth is an "empire day"?

Gumbo

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Refusing to give up banking time

Source?

Jaysoose

RichardAnd wrote: »

The removal of bank time wouln't make an iota of difference in terms of savings. And what on earth is an "empire day"?

Im sorry but if the 4 million savings that this would alledgedly produce is to be believed could this money not be better spent elsewhere? The argument that the savings are negligible are a disgrace as this could be used to buy vital equiment in any of the hospitals around the country or provide special needs assistants etc.

RichardAnd

Jaysoose wrote: »

Im sorry but if the 4 million savings that this would alledgedly produce is to be believed could this money not be better spent elsewhere? The argument that the savings are negligible are a disgrace as this could be used to buy vital equiment in any of the hospitals around the country or provide special needs assistants etc.

Explain to me how bank time being removed would save 4 million euro because I can't see how it would?

Jaysoose

RichardAnd wrote: »

Explain to me how bank time being removed would save 4 million euro because I can't see how it would?

Misread your post..replace "bank time" with "privilege Days".

sarumite

kceire wrote: »

Source?

Here is a news report from RTE.
Union to resist removal of 'bank time'

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1029/pay.html

Head The Wall

It was to be expected from the paper shufflers union. They obviously think they are worth it. Time to scrap CP if you ask me

Cookie_Monster

It will work for the PS. no cuts in pay or condition and no reform will happen

It won't work for everyone else and we still face a mammoth bill for a massively over staffed and over cost service that deliver little in the way of effective services.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

Here is a news report from RTE.
Union to resist removal of 'bank time'

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1029/pay.html

Saurumite two things
1. Can you tell me where in the article you linked to and the article it links where it is stated that the unions will resist this(excluding RTE's claim of such)?

2. What date is on that article?

RobbieTheRobber

Head The Wall wrote: »

It was to be expected from the paper shufflers union. They obviously think they are worth it. Time to scrap CP if you ask me

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It will work for the PS. no cuts in pay or condition and no reform will happen

It won't work for everyone else and we still face a mammoth bill for a massively over staffed and over cost service that deliver little in the way of effective services.

The first report is due in May!

On what basis are you making these claims?

RobbieTheRobber

RichardAnd wrote: »

Have you got a source for this? If this is true, it's good news as it means we won't have to see more unemployment.

Sadly no its from a personal source, however in May when the first reports on the CPA are due we will then get to see what has happened so far. I think wild statements about it until then from either side of the argument is fruitless.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Two years later we have *500 existing public servants moving into the dept of social welfare and this is viewed as a victory? where are the increased efficencies? were is the 'natural wastage'? The CPA is the biggest stroke ever pulled by the unions as it insulated a certain group of society from the economic reality faced by the country. Anybody commenting on this is called a public servant basher and the unions stick their fingers in their ears and keep shouting "begrudger".

*alledgedly

It was only formally ratified on the 15th of June 2010
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0615/breaking61.html

Where are you getting two years from?

So it has been implemented less than one year, in an organisation of over 300,000 did you expect reform in one week or two? :rolleyes:

This process requires planning in order for it to be effective to take a wild approach to cost cutting cannot really be called reform. IMO

RichardAnd

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sadly no its from a personal source, however in May when the first reports on the CPA are due we will then get to see what has happened so far. I think wild statements about it until then from either side of the argument is fruitless.

Hmm well I guess we'll just have to see. I expect savings but things have gotten worse since the deal was signed so who can say what will happen

RobbieTheRobber

RichardAnd wrote: »

Hmm well I guess we'll just have to see. I expect savings but things have gotten worse since the deal was signed so who can say what will happen

Indeed and the unions are aware of this and the fact that while Fine gael accepted the CPA while in opposition they can also fairly easily pull the plug and blame it on the previous regime and let the Independent news group spin its anti PS tripe.

So with the above considered it is actually in the interests of the unions to make this work.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Saurumite two things
1. Can you tell me where in the article you linked to and the article it links where it is stated that the unions will resist this(excluding RTE's claim of such)?

2. What date is on that article?

1. The first line of the article says "Lower paid civil servants have said they will resist the removal of bank time". If you have a problem with how RTE reported it, then take it up with them. I was merely offering a source.

2. Whats the relevance of the date?

galway2007

sarumite wrote: »

1. The first line of the article says "Lower paid civil servants have said they will resist the removal of bank time". If you have a problem with how RTE reported it, then take it up with them. I was merely offering a source.

2. Whats the relevance of the date?

Because once again you are talking crap

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

1. The first line of the article says "Lower paid civil servants have said they will resist the removal of bank time". If you have a problem with how RTE reported it, then take it up with them. I was merely offering a source.

2. Whats the relevance of the date?

You linked to it and in bold said Union to resist strike, when what you should report is that rte said the union said.
Anyway my point is you reported lazy journalism as fact, if the CPSU in this case had said such a thing RTe would have quoted it and they didnt!

Well the date is relevant in that older articles with unsubstantiated claims might now have been proven to be unsubstantiated for a reason!
Here is a quote from a more recent article regarding the very union in the RTe story and an actual quote from a CPSU source .

Yesterday, CPSU deputy general secretary Eoin Ronayne said while its members retained the two privilege days “we agreed not to contest the loss of our bank days on the understanding that higher grades wouldn’t keep their two privilege days”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292846993.html

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You linked to it and in bold said Union to resist strike, when what you should report is that rte said the union said.
Anyway my point is you reported lazy journalism as fact, if the CPSU in this case had said such a thing RTe would have quoted it and they didnt!

Well the date is relevant in that older articles with unsubstantiated claims might now have been proven to be unsubstantiated for a reason!
Here is a quote from a more recent article regarding the very union in the RTe story and an actual quote from a CPSU source .





http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292846993.html

FYI, the I never said unions to resist strike, that was the title of the article, furthermore the bold text was a direct result of the cut n' paste from the website, not me.

Gumbo

sarumite wrote: »

Here is a news report from RTE.
Union to resist removal of 'bank time'

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1029/pay.html

There's been no resistance to it's removal in my job. We were told last year it would be scrapped for any staff receiving it at the turn around of he new leave year which is 1st April.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

FYI, the I never said unions to resist strike, that was the title of the article, furthermore the bold text was a direct result of the cut n' paste from the website, not me.

Thats funny that it added the formatting I didnt think that worked that way, I was sure formatting had to be added within the posting screen.

Anyway do you now accept that article to be a) Incorrect b) Out of date c) Both ?

Nody

RichardAnd wrote: »

The removal of bank time wouln't make an iota of difference in terms of savings. And what on earth is an "empire day"?

Empire day is another day off to celebrate the British Empire iirc; still in effect.

And it would work as an enabler project by freeing up resources (since theoretically all PS is busy all day) to execute these project improvements etc. Hence in itself it would not save money but it would free up time and resources to execute the projects that would.

Gumbo

Nody wrote: »

Empire day is another day off to celebrate the British Empire iirc; still in effect.

Seriously, did you just make up this day?

Yourwellcum

The bank time has been gone from the prison service for several months now and there was barely even a whisper about it. Everyone realised it was an out of date practice.

RichardAnd

kceire wrote: »

Seriously, did you just make up this day?

No he actually didn't though I didn't realise it when I responded to the origional post. Empire day is now refered to as commonwealth day.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Day

RobbieTheRobber

RichardAnd wrote: »

No he actually didn't though I didn't realise it when I responded to the origional post. Empire day is now refered to as commonwealth day.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Day

Right so it exists in the United kingdom is what your saying but not in the irish civil service, yeah?

RichardAnd

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Right so it exists in the United kingdom is what your saying but not in the irish civil service, yeah?

Yeah but he was implying that the privilege day exists as it was introduced when Ireland was part of the Empire. I assume anyway.

Degsy

Empire day...what a load of utter bollocks..i'm in the PS 16 years and i never heard of it.

I hear people working in Microsoft get two weeks paid holiday for Bill gates birthday.

20Cent

Degsy wrote: »

Empire day...what a load of utter bollocks..i'm in the PS 16 years and i never heard of it.

I hear people working in Microsoft get two weeks paid holiday for Bill gates birthday.

Me too never heard of it.

When I worked in the private sector I had increments and bank time though!!

Gumbo

RichardAnd wrote: »

No he actually didn't though I didn't realise it when I responded to the origional post. Empire day is now refered to as commonwealth day.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Day

so its a UK holiday..................nothing whatsoever got to do with Irish PS ???