Union members still away with the fairies.

Lapin

I'm not sure if there is a forum on Boards dedicated to the sheer stupidity of union representatives but if there is, Gerry Enright deserves pride of place.

This gentleman supported a motion to become what I would call 'a professional dosser' at our expense.

Thankfully his appeals to restore a free half hour in lieu of the time off to cash wage cheques were shot down by union leaders at the Public Service Executive Union annual conference in Galway yesterday. A rare welcome development on their behalf.

However, the fact that one third of the delegates voted to reintroduce the paid half hour shows how out of touch many of them still are.

Enrights defence of the motion is astonishing.

"We are not looking for time off as such, we are looking for the arrangement to leave work earlier".

At a time when hundreds of thousands of people in this country are crying out for work, Enrights request to get paid to doss is much more "rude and insulting" than the (sensible) comments used by Billy Hannigan of the PSEU to dismiss the motion.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0416/1224294804353.html

P. Breathnach

The real story is that delegates at the annual conference -- who generally are among the most active of union members -- shot down the motion.

Spend any time on boards.ie, and you know that there is no shortage of idiots in any group.

ei.sdraob

Yep they sure are

Delegates at the Civil Public and Services Union annual conference in Athlone have voted to withdraw co-operation with reforms under the Croke Park Agreement.
The union, which represents the lowest paid civil servants, said such co-operation had been tied to a guarantee of no further pay cuts before 2014.
However, members had experienced significant cuts in their take-home pay as a result of the 2010 budget.

fat__tony

I sincerely hope that the 33% of people who voted in favour of that motion are removed from their jobs in the near future.

Pathetic, self-serving mindset in these challenging times.

sollar

Looks like they have voted in favour of industrial action if further paycuts are introduced

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/cpsu-opts-for-strike-action-if-pay-cuts-introduced-501576.html

Head The Wall

It's no surprise that the so-called lowest paid seem to be the most retarded of them all. This is what happens when you give pencil pushers too much wages, they start to get serious notions above their station in life.

therecklessone

Just to clarify:

The OP was about a motion defeated at the PSEU Annual Conference in Galway.

The CPSU Annual Conference produced the two motions referenced later in the thread.

ParkRunner

sollar wrote: »

Looks like they have voted in favour of industrial action if further paycuts are introduced

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/cpsu-opts-for-strike-action-if-pay-cuts-introduced-501576.html

No not quite, a vote will have to be taken first of all CPSU members before industrial action is sanctioned, which I hope is rejected.

hatz7

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh look, another PS bashing thread.
Move along, nothing to see here folks.

Are you insane?
Did you even read the OP's post?

It is not a PS bashing thread or post, it is a thread reporting on a fact that came to light over the weekend in Galway.

I'm dumbfounded that such a proposal was even voted upon.
I honestly consider it to be a hostile act on behalf of the PS against the State.

This state is on its knees and its staff are looking to get off work early on a friday.....

ardmacha

Pathetic, self-serving mindset in these challenging times.

No doubt. But no different from those who post on here saying that they will obstruct the installation of water meters, instead expecting the government to borrow money to provide them with free water.

waster81

fat__tony wrote: »

I sincerely hope that the 33% of people who voted in favour of that motion are removed from their jobs in the near future.

Pathetic, self-serving mindset in these challenging times.

Typical iditoic statement from the most worthless and sinister elements of society who have nothing better to procrastinate against another sector of society

Go and crawl under the stone you came out of

[MOD]'procrastinate' means "waste time" - you are thinking, I suspect, of 'fulminate'. Yellow-carded for rudeness either way.[/MOD]

Scofflaw

therecklessone wrote: »

Just to clarify:

The OP was about a motion defeated at the PSEU Annual Conference in Galway.

The CPSU Annual Conference produced the two motions referenced later in the thread.

Thank you for that clarification. Can the people who want to discuss the motion by the CPSU please use another thread. And can the people who just want to bash the PS/unions no matter what the acronym or subject might be please use another forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

femur61

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh look, another PS bashing thread.
Move along, nothing to see here folks.

I'm sorry but I can understand why people want to PS bash, country has no money and who is paying thier wages? If a private company weant into receivership, like Ireland is, people would loose thier jobs but yet the PS refuse to take paycuts. And stop the mantra we need them, country has to make cut backs we've no money.

Head The Wall

The fact that there is still a near 20bn deficit says that the govt hasn't done enough to curtail its spending and collect revenue. But why don't you ignore that fact and the fact that 1/3 of govt expenditure goes on pay and pensions.

There haven't been enough payouts and increments need to be scrapped

sollar

Head The Wall wrote: »

There haven't been enough payouts

Nobody is looking for payouts head the wall.

ParkRunner

In the interests of balance, from the Irish Times:

CIVIL SERVANTS hoping to regain a free half-hour – a perk that used to exist for them to bank their pay cheques – were told by their own union yesterday their plans were “idiocy” and “nonsense”.

An effort was made yesterday at the Public Service Executive Union (PSEU) annual conference in Galway to have an old agreement reinstated.

The “banking half-hour” system allowed workers to lodge their pay cheques before electronic wage transfer was introduced.

It was abolished for new entrants to the public service in 2003 and ended for others last year under the Croke Park agreement. A motion before the PSEU conference called for the restoration of the perk, but it was opposed by union leaders.

Deputy general secretary Billy Hannigan shot down the motion, saying they would be laughed at if workers looked for time off to bank cheques they didn’t even get.

“This is total and utter nonsense – idiocy of the highest order. We complain about the media not taking us seriously – how could they when we don’t take ourselves seriously if we pass this motion.
“We should take this motion and frog-march it out the door,” he said.

Earlier the Legal Aid Board branch had proposed that while the banking half-hour had ended, it sought to instruct the incoming union executive to seek the restoration of the arrangement whereby it was possible for staff to clock in or for up to half an hour during the day on Thursdays or Fridays without incurring an infringement.

Branch delegate Gerry Enright said that some members had got into the practice over the years of leaving a little early and had asked if that halfhour flexibility could be restored.

Mr Enright said that Mr Hannigan’s comments were “rude and insulting”, although he was sure this was not intended. “We are not looking for banking time as such, we are looking for the arrangement to leave work earlier,” he said.

Clare Connolly, a delegate from the Department of Education and Skills, said she had never benefited from the banking half-hour and that if it was restored for some it would only cause difficulty.

The motion was defeated by a margin of about two-to-one, although a number of branches supported it. The PSEU represents mid-ranking public sector workers, mainly employed in Government departments.

th3 s1aught3r

The public servents are not living in the real world at all. They have an advantage over the rest of the private sector workers and they want to hold onto that advantage, its human nature.
Its the job of the government to enforce the pay cuts and changes to work practices that are necessary
And if they want to go on strike, fine, dont pay them for refusing to work, simples

hatz7

I think the decision to table the motion of reinstating the half hour was ludicrous.

Our state is neck deep in a great economic pit of despair. For the motion to have even being put on the agenda, never mind being voted upon was crass, insensitive and actually stark raving bonkers.

That is my issue with this scenario, the state is facing unrepresented economic turmoil and a section of its workforce wants to ignore it just so they can finish early on a Friday.

There is something wrong at the executive level within the union in question.

gigino

sollar wrote: »

I am so tired reading this rubbish. The PS have taken paycuts.

Not meaningful ones though. Government expenditure on the public sector is still nearly double what it was ten years ago. And ten years ago things were not so bad ( in the wider economy , as a whole ).

Essexboy

hatz7 wrote: »

I think the decision to table the motion of reinstating the half hour was ludicrous.

Our state is neck deep in a great economic pit of despair. For the motion to have even being put on the agenda, never mind being voted upon was crass, insensitive and actually stark raving bonkers.

That is my issue with this scenario, the state is facing unrepresented economic turmoil and a section of its workforce wants to ignore it just so they can finish early on a Friday.

There is something wrong at the executive level within the union in question.

Agreed but can you blame them when the politicians indulge in this kind of lunacy
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hAJQNOQSlg6nLY3axx-UueTpyh6g?docId=N0574211302705880387A
This will be another gravy train for rural dwellers.

amacca

gigino wrote: »

Not meaningful ones though

in your opinion...No doubt they are meaningful to the people experiencing them.

loldog

Head The Wall wrote: »

While we have unions discussing idiotic motions like this well then I will continue to question the intelligence of said unions and its members. They are in La La land

I think perhaps you might be the one in La La Land if you think we all should suffer and make sacrifices due to a fake, synthetic economic "crisis" brought about by crony capitalism at its very worst.

The United States is rushing toward a neofeudal system, with accelerating concentration of wealth in the top 1%. Instead of lashing out at your natural allies, I might suggest you look to the causes of the present situation, investigate the nature of our currency system and look to the past for clues about where we might be headed.

There's just as much wealth in the world as there ever was - there is no crisis - except a fake one which provides an opportunity to further the ideological aims of the Neofeudalists. So, WAKE UP!

.

Head The Wall

And how exactly is that going to fix our real and current deficit problem?

Finding out how you got lung cancer doesn't tell you how to get rid of it.

And yes I think suffering will happen and it should happen to everyone as opposed to everyone minus the PS. I don't agree on us having to bail out the banks either but that's life at times, it can suck

At least they voted it down - you'd worry about the ones that didn't...

loldog

Head The Wall wrote: »

And how exactly is that going to fix our real and current deficit problem?

We don't have a financial crisis. The whole thing could be resolved overnight, if we in western societies elected the right people. The agenda we ordinary schmucks are up against is this:

Former Cheney Aide: Last 100 Years of Progressive Reforms All a Mistake

.

sollar

femur61 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I can understand why people want to PS bash, country has no money and who is paying thier wages? If a private company weant into receivership, like Ireland is, people would loose thier jobs but yet the PS refuse to take paycuts. And stop the mantra we need them, country has to make cut backs we've no money.

femur61 the PS have taken paycuts and this has been all over these boards and the media.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

femur61 the PS have taken paycuts and this has been all over these boards and the media.

Agreed, althoug the PS took a paycut...not plural. A contribution to a defined benifit is not a cut. That has also been all over the boards.

robd

Lapin wrote: »

"We are not looking for time off as such, we are looking for the arrangement to leave work earlier".

It's a bizare request all right.

Without getting into a PS bashing debate there does seem to be a large disconnect between the working hours of the modern office worker (9-5.30 with 1 hour for lunch - 37.5 hr working week, with 20 days holidays) and those of the PS. (9-5 with 1.15 hr for lunch - 33.5 hr working week, and 25+ days holidays).

That's not to say that other private sector workers don't have these deals, but anyone who started work in the last decade simply does not. It's more a generational gap.

This guy seems to utterly fail to recognise the disconnect with the modern worker.

sollar

sarumite wrote: »

A contribution to a defined benifit is not a cut. That has also been all over the boards.

Public servants see this very differently though. Also mentined a few times on here.

There was a pension agreement in place, the pension levy was foisted on public servants without agreement. Money taken form their wages and no net improvement to their pensions. Its clearly a disimprovement to the terms already in place for public servants.

fliball123

sollar wrote: »

Public servants see this very differently though. Also mentined a few times on here.

There was a pension agreement in place, the pension levy was foisted on public servants without agreement. Money taken form their wages and no net improvement to their pensions. Its clearly a disimprovement to the terms already in place for public servants.

It was a retrospective attempt to make people in the ps pay for their already overly generous pensions.....Sorry if you see it differently..Hows about seeing it from the private sector tax payer??? if you didnt pay that 7% where has it been coming from?

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

Public servants see this very differently though. Also mentined a few times on here.

There was a pension agreement in place, the pension levy was foisted on public servants without agreement. Money taken form their wages and no net improvement to their pensions. Its clearly a disimprovement to the terms already in place for public servants.

They can see it that way, but it doesn't change the facts. ITs not a pay cut. If you are not contributing enough to your pensions, then clearly more needs to be contributed or the value of the pension reduced. I agree the manner and timing of the levy was handled very poorly by the government, however thats a different debate. The gross pay of a PS worker was reduced by an average of 7.5%. Thats a pay cut.

sollar

sarumite wrote: »

They can see it that way, but it doesn't change the facts. ITs not a pay cut. If you are not contributing enough to your pensions, then clearly more needs to be contributed or the value of the pension reduced. I agree the manner and timing of the levy was handled very poorly by the government, however thats a different debate. The gross pay of a PS worker was reduced by an average of 7.5%. Thats a pay cut.

Your ignoring the fact that arrangement was in place. They unilaterally broke that agreement and implemented changes that favored them 100% from the previous position.

Anyway we could go round in circles here.

fliball123

sollar wrote: »

Your ignoring the fact that arrangement was in place. They unilaterally broke that agreement and implemented changes that favored them 100% from the previous position.

Anyway we could go round in circles here.

Aggreed..we will have to aggree to disagree..and proportionality will have to rule

I would hazard a guess that approx just over 300k see this as a pay cut for the ps and the rest of the nation see it as a contribution to a defined benefit

Viper_JB

fliball123 wrote: »

Aggreed..we will have to aggree to disagree..and proportionality will have to rule

I would hazard a guess that approx just over 300k see this as a pay cut for the ps and the rest of the nation see it as a contribution to a defined benefit

+1 You're not going to get much sympathy because you're expected to contribute to your pension. I mean hell if you don't like it you could always join the private sector and contribute to at least 50% of your overall pension.

fliball123

Viper_JB wrote: »

+1 You're not going to get much sympathy because you're expected to contribute to your pension. I mean hell if you don't like it you could always join the private sector and contribute to at least 50% of your overall pension.

Eh should this have been aimed at me..I am all for ps cuts and see the ps pension levy as a contribution to a defined benefit not a pay cut.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

Your ignoring the fact that arrangement was in place. They unilaterally broke that agreement and implemented changes that favored them 100% from the previous position.

Anyway we could go round in circles here.

I agree. Though I don't think I ignored that fact, as I said the manner of the governments handling of the levy was very poor.

That said we could (and probably would) just go round in circles here,

Head The Wall

sollar wrote: »

Your ignoring the fact that arrangement was in place. They unilaterally broke that agreement and implemented changes that favored them 100% from the previous position.

Anyway we could go round in circles here.

Legislation entitles the govt to change these agreements when they see fit to do so. The pension levy was brought in so currently retired PS staff would see no reduction in their pensions, why don't the current PS staff kick up a fuss about that issue. The pension levy is tax deductible as well so its not a full 7% cut either

Viper_JB

fliball123 wrote: »

Eh should this have been aimed at me..I am all for ps cuts and see the ps pension levy as a contribution to a defined benefit not a pay cut.

The you here was a plural you just ment as a sweeping statement to cover PS workers here, not aimed at you, more re-enforcing your point.

Whiskeyjack

I'd like to point out that the ps workers looking for the half hour off appear to be in the minority. As much as I think the PS is in deperate need of reform I see no reason to tar them all with this brush.

bobbysands81

Shame on all previous posters in this thread, you are helping to perpetuate the lies and misinformation about the Civil and Public Service. Not one of you has read the innacurate article from the Irish Times properly.

The motion put down at Conference did NOT ask for an extra half hour "free" or for the reinstatement of the banking half hour.

The motion asked for a slight bit more leeway be given so that a person might come into work at 9:30am and leave at 5:30pm rather than come in at 9am and leave at 5pm.

All you folks have jumped to the usual conclusions about the Civil Service without first engaging your brains.

OMD

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Shame on all previous posters in this thread, you are helping to perpetuate the lies and misinformation about the Civil and Public Service. Not one of you has read the innacurate article from the Irish Times properly.

The motion put down at Conference did NOT ask for an extra half hour "free" or for the reinstatement of the banking half hour.

The motion asked for a slight bit more leeway be given so that a person might come into work at 9:30am and leave at 5:30pm rather than come in at 9am and leave at 5pm.

All you folks have jumped to the usual conclusions about the Civil Service without first engaging your brains.

No Bobbysands, you did not read it. Both were up for discussion. The return of the half an hour to cash cheques (that do not exist) and the "bit more leeway be given so that a person might come into work at 9:30am and leave at 5:30pm rather than come in at 9am and leave at 5pm. "

bobbysands81

OMD wrote: »

No Bobbysands, you did not read it. Both were up for discussion. The return of the half an hour to cash cheques (that do not exist) and the "bit more leeway be given so that a person might come into work at 9:30am and leave at 5:30pm rather than come in at 9am and leave at 5pm. "

That did not happen - the article is innacurate.

There was no call to reinstate the banking half hour, the journalist was either wrong or intentionally lied.

bobbysands81

Lapin wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is a forum on Boards dedicated to the sheer stupidity of union representatives but if there is, Gerry Enright deserves pride of place.

This gentleman supported a motion to become what I would call 'a professional dosser' at our expense.

Thankfully his appeals to restore a free half hour in lieu of the time off to cash wage cheques were shot down by union leaders at the Public Service Executive Union annual conference in Galway yesterday. A rare welcome development on their behalf.

However, the fact that one third of the delegates voted to reintroduce the paid half hour shows how out of touch many of them still are.

Enrights defence of the motion is astonishing.

"We are not looking for time off as such, we are looking for the arrangement to leave work earlier".

At a time when hundreds of thousands of people in this country are crying out for work, Enrights request to get paid to doss is much more "rude and insulting" than the (sensible) comments used by Billy Hannigan of the PSEU to dismiss the motion.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0416/1224294804353.html

What's "astonishing" is that the Irish Times let this article onto their front page, I find that "rude and insulting" due to the fact that the journalist has completely misunderstood the motion.

The more cynical of us might even think it was done so intentionally in order to fling more mud at Civil/Public Servants.

How the hell did this article make it passed the Editor of the Irish Times, never mind onto the front page?

Scofflaw

The PSEU conference preliminary agenda is available here: http://www.pseu.ie/circulars/bs01011.doc

It does not contain any motion to reinstate the "banking half-hour" - it contains only this reference to it:

Flexible Working Hours

1 This Conference acknowledges the ending of the banking time flexi half hour and instructs the incoming Executive to seek the restoration of the arrangement where it was possible to key in or out up to half an hour into core time on Thursdays or Fridays without incurring an infringement.

-Legal Aid Board

Unless there was a change to the agenda, the case is kind of closed. It's possible that someone at the conference got the wrong end of the stick - the article in the IT does more or less say that, with the comments from the Legal Aid Board and Gerry Enright:

Mr Enright said that Mr Hannigan’s comments were “rude and insulting”, although he was sure this was not intended. “We are not looking for banking time as such, we are looking for the arrangement to leave work earlier,” he said.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bobbysands81

Scofflaw wrote: »

The PSEU conference preliminary agenda is available here: http://www.pseu.ie/circulars/bs01011.doc

It does not contain any motion to reinstate the "banking half-hour" - it contains only this reference to it:



Unless there was a change to the agenda, the case is kind of closed. It's possible that someone at the conference got the wrong end of the stick - the article in the IT does more or less say that, with the comments from the Legal Aid Board and Gerry Enright:



cordially,
Scofflaw

But what's worrying about this is that the Irish Times, the paper of record, got it so wrong and led with a false story on their FRONT page.

This is what the Irish Times WRONGLY said:

"CIVIL SERVANTS hoping to regain a free half-hour – a perk that used to exist for them to bank their pay cheques – were told by their own union yesterday their plans were “idiocy” and “nonsense”." WRONG - There was no attempt to get a "free half hour".

"An effort was made yesterday at the Public Service Executive Union (PSEU) annual conference in Galway to have an old agreement reinstated." WRONG - There was no attempt to get an old agreement reinstated.

Gerry Enright TWICE took the platform and clarified what he meant - why did the journalist, John Fallon, ignore this and go with his interpretation of what was said instead of what was actually said?

He even finished the article with a little dig - "The motion was defeated by a margin of about two-to-one, although a number of branches supported it." Maybe that's because some folk took the time out to understand what was actually said John.

A few posters on this thread should also be apologising.

bobbysands81

Lapin wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is a forum on Boards dedicated to the sheer stupidity of union representatives but if there is, Gerry Enright deserves pride of place.

This gentleman supported a motion to become what I would call 'a professional dosser' at our expense.

Thankfully his appeals to restore a free half hour in lieu of the time off to cash wage cheques were shot down by union leaders at the Public Service Executive Union annual conference in Galway yesterday. A rare welcome development on their behalf.

However, the fact that one third of the delegates voted to reintroduce the paid half hour shows how out of touch many of them still are.

Enrights defence of the motion is astonishing.

"We are not looking for time off as such, we are looking for the arrangement to leave work earlier".

At a time when hundreds of thousands of people in this country are crying out for work, Enrights request to get paid to doss is much more "rude and insulting" than the (sensible) comments used by Billy Hannigan of the PSEU to dismiss the motion.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0416/1224294804353.html

Practically every single word of this post is utter nonsense.

You owe a huge apology to Civil Servants because of your inability to read and understand, you have said some very ignorant things in your post - let's see if you're man enough to apologise?

ixtlan

I'm somewhat unclear on this.

Taken at face value, the item for discussion at the conference seems to be asking for the half hour back, "possible to key in or out up to half an hour into core time on Thursdays or Fridays without incurring an infringement".

If the matter at question was to allow flexi time so that workers could arrive30 minutes late and leave 30 minutes late, that would seem perfectly reasonable, and indeed it would even be reasonable to criticise management for not allowing such flexibility.

Bobbysands81, I believe you are saying that Gerry Enright clarified that he was not asking for any time off, just flexibility on the start and end times for the day. Though I suppose that in certain roles (customer facing) there could be issues with this.

I am confused. I can see the media wanting to distort this, but why did the union then reject it? Surely they could have held up the flexibility as a benefit for everyone?

ix.

bobbysands81

ixtlan wrote: »

I'm somewhat unclear on this.

Taken at face value, the item for discussion at the conference seems to be asking for the half hour back, "possible to key in or out up to half an hour into core time on Thursdays or Fridays without incurring an infringement".

If the matter at question was to allow flexi time so that workers could arrive30 minutes late and leave 30 minutes late, that would seem perfectly reasonable, and indeed it would even be reasonable to criticise management for not allowing such flexibility.

Bobbysands81, I believe you are saying that Gerry Enright clarified that he was not asking for any time off, just flexibility on the start and end times for the day. Though I suppose that in certain roles (customer facing) there could be issues with this.

I am confused. I can see the media wanting to distort this, but why did the union then reject it? Surely they could have held up the flexibility as a benefit for everyone?

ix.

When speaking Gerry Enright made it clear, as do the very first words of the motion which state, that - "This Conference acknowledges the ending of the banking time flexi half hour..." You can't say clearer than that can you?

He then asks to seek the restoration of the arrangement whereby staff could be allowed to key in (for example) half an hour later than core hours, nothing in the motion seeks "free time", it is clear to anyone that reads that what he is asking for. That he then stood up and twice explained very clearly what was meant by the motion but for some reason the journalist from the Irish Times completely ignored this even though he must have been there as he quotes Clare Connolly and Billy Hannigan as well.

To me there can be no other explanation other than the journalist maliciously lied in order to file a good story - the Irish Times fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Vizzy

But out of interest,why did the delegates then oppose the motion ?.
As ixtlan says,surely passing the motion would have been beneficial to all
I presume also that the spirit of the motion was to allow for a type of flexi-time where possible i.e it would have had no effect on opening hours etc ?

bobbysands81

Vizzy wrote: »

But out of interest,why did the delegates then oppose the motion ?.
As ixtlan says,surely passing the motion would have been beneficial to all
I presume also that the spirit of the motion was to allow for a type of flexi-time where possible i.e it would have had no effect on opening hours etc ?

In my opinion members of our Union want public service reform, after all we voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Croke Park Deal. To many this "arrangement" would have been seen as a step backwards and completely unrequired.

Vizzy

Fair enough
Thanks for clearing that up