Judges and Shatter start duking it out.

The_Minister

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minister-and-judges-in-website-faceoff-2817717.html

THE war between the Government and the judiciary over the proposed referendum on judges' pay escalated yesterday after Justice Minister Alan Shatter issued a formal rebuke to the chief executive of the Courts Service.

The latest row centres on the judiciary's decision to publish the full text of a memorandum, in which it criticises the wording of the Government's proposed referendum, on the Courts Service website.

Having learned of the judges' move, Mr Shatter is said by sources at the Law Library to have instructed one of his officials to phone the chief executive of the Courts Service, Brendan Ryan, and demand that the memorandum be removed.
The demand is said by the same sources to have been "politely but firmly rebuffed" by Mr Ryan, with the reminder that the Courts Service operates independently of his office.

Contacted by the Sunday Independent last night, Mr Shatter denied that he had attempted to force Mr Ryan to remove the judges' memorandum from the courts service website. He did, however, admit that he instructed one of his officials to phone Mr Ryan to express his disapproval of the Courts Service's decision to host the judges' memorandum on the courts.ie website.

In a statement issued through his spokeswoman, Mr Shatter said: "I did not phone Brendan Ryan. An official from my department phoned Mr Ryan to inform him that I believed it was inappropriate that the memorandum be hosted on the courts.ie website. It was a matter for Mr Ryan to determine what to do thereafter. I made no demand, nor did I talk to Mr Ryan.

"At all times I knew the legislative position. My department regularly liaises with Mr Ryan and it was entirely appropriate that my views be expressed to him. The provision for the courts service is made for through the Department of Justice estimates, and there is constant communication between the department and the courts service."

Separate to that statement, the Sunday Independent understands that Mr Shatter has personally expressed his view to others that the publication of the judges' memorandum on the website of the courts service is inappropriate.

But while Mr Shatter disapproves of the presence of the judges' memorandum on the site, his efforts through a departmental official to have it removed appear to have been fruitless so far. The decision by the judiciary to post its memorandum on the site is understood to have been prompted by the publication of document details in the Irish Times last Monday.

Law Library sources believe that the details in the newspaper report were leaked by someone in Government, and were "highly selective" to the point where they could potentially undermine the judges' argument that a constitutional amendment on their pay could threaten their independence, and Ireland's international standing.

A Law Library source said: "The Government leaked it to the Irish Times, so the judiciary decided to post it on the website of the Courts Service in its entirety so it wouldn't be misunderstood or misrepresented."- JOHN DRENNAN and RONALD QUINLAN

The memo is completely different in tone and content than what was implied in the Irish Times article - methinks Shatter's little trick just blew up in his face

Link to Memorandum

The memo is quite fair, the first bit is on judicial independence generally, and para 21 onwards is about the problems they have with the specific proposed wording.

Morlar

On this issue I am with Minister Shatter. Their excuses for why they should be the exception and avoid a salary reduction seem flimsy, disingenous and far fetched in my view.

The_Minister

Morlar wrote: »

On this issue I am with Minister Shatter. Their excuses for why they should be the exception and avoid a salary reduction seem flimsy, disingenous and far fetched in my view.

They have already said they are ok with the salery reduction - it's in the first paragraph of the memo.

All but 15 have already voluntarily taken paycuts

Their only issue is with how the paycuts are achieved.

BlaasForRafa

The_Minister wrote: »

The memo is quite fair, the first bit is on judicial independence generally, and para 21 onwards is about the problems they have with the specific proposed wording.

The judges should not be allowed use an official website to post propoganda about their pay dispute

MonaghanPenguin

Morlar wrote: »

On this issue I am with Minister Shatter. Their excuses for why they should be the exception and avoid a salary reduction seem flimsy, disingenous and far fetched in my view.

well done on actually reading the materials before commenting........ oh wait.....

Morlar

The_Minister wrote: »

They have already said they are ok with the salery reduction - it's in the first paragraph of the memo.

All but 15 have already voluntarily taken paycuts

Their only issue is with how the paycuts are achieved.

It's not that confusing or complicated in my view. What they actually said was :

No one doubts for a moment the seriousness of the economic crisis facing the country. The judiciary has not opposed the proposal for amendment of Article 35, section 5 of the Constitution. The ultimate decision on would, of course, be entirely a matter for Oireachtas and the People.

Do you see this as a concession on their part that they acknowledge the economic situation the country is in ? I don't, I see that as literally unavoidable. It's a nonsense piece of fluff before moving onto . . .

The issue here is not whether judges’ pay should be reduced, but rather how that reduction should be achieved, while effecting the least interference with the principle of independence of the Judiciary which that provision of the Constitution is designed to protect.
Historical context
2. If judicial pay is cut, this will be the first time that this has occurred in the legal history of these islands since the Act of Settlement 1701.
3. Article 68 of the 1922 Constitution provided that the remuneration of judges “may not be diminished during their continuance in office”. Writing in 1932 in his seminal text, Professor Kohn observed that:

This part is a non-issue in my view. The notion that 'if you legislate to make it constitutional to reduce our pay you might diminish the independence of the judiciary' is the one I don't accept.

There should be no such thing to begin with as gold-plated, bullett proof jobs paid for by the public purse which need a constitutional amendment to reduce salary levels. All this is about is reducing salary levels to the very highest paid sectors. It should not even be necessary to have a refferendum on this but they have refused consistently to accept salary reductions by any other way. All their response to this has been about is finding flimsy and disingenous ways to drag it out and avoid biting the bullett.

I think the underlying issue is wider than just the judiciary, the issue is overpaid sectors avoiding paycuts by any means necessary. They have had several years to do this voluntarily and there have not.

There was another article linked on the independent webpage you posted above which is relevant to this story :

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/consultants-and-barristers-next-in-line-for-wage-cuts-2817727.html

Consultants and barristers next in line for wage cuts

By JOHN DRENNAN

Sunday July 10 2011

The Sunday Independent has learned that hospital consultants and barristers are the next group whose excessive pay rates are facing the chop.

The news comes in the wake of the decision of senior mandarins to accept significant pay cuts and the signalled determination of the Government to "take on'' our recalcitrant judiciary, senior figures within the cabinet have told the Sunday Independent.

The move is in part informed by the "astonishment'' felt by the EU/IMF/ECB troika over the pay levels for Irish hospital consultants.

One minister said: "The view of the Government is that if we are engaged in the business of cutting wages, this time, unlike Fianna Fail, we're going to start from the top."

They added that "the hospital consultants are next" and said "the issue has been devolved to James Reilly at his own request and negotiations have begun".

At last week's Ictu conference, Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore warned that the rates of pay of "sheltered sectors" would have to be tackled.

One government source told the Sunday Independent that when it comes to the pay of professions such as barristers and consultants, "there is a consensus at the heart of Government this has to be done swiftly".

In the wake of criticism from Mr Reilly following the release of figures showing how one consultant earned more than €1m from the VHI, top doctors are in "the immediate firing line''.

These figures emerged in response to a Dail question by Labour's Kevin Humphreys on consultant earnings from both public work and private VHI clinics.

It also emerged that 37 consultants earned more than €500,000 a year, while a further 301 consultants earned €200,000. The totals indicate 338 consultants earn as much or more than the Taoiseach.

A top-level source in the Department of Health said: "Figures like this explain why the minister is so anxious to break up VHI dominance."

The arrival of the IMF does appear to have brought the consultants to heel.

One senior figure noted that "our consultant friends have become a lot more humble. The party is over and they're trying to negotiate a way out of the present contract, whether through longer hours or more productivity".

A source close to the Cabinet also said that "so far, the consultants have displayed a positive recognition of the consequences of the new economic realities".

- JOHN DRENNAN

Morlar

MonaghanPenguin wrote: »

well done on actually reading the materials before commenting........ oh wait.....

There is a difference between reading something and agreeing with it.

In this case I did actually read it before disagreeing with it. I know this is confusing but try to keep up.

galwayrush

This country can't afford the massive salaries such as those our Judges and other pampered 'elite' enjoy.

The_Minister

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The judges should not be allowed use an official website to post propoganda about their pay dispute

The government selectively leaked parts of the memo in the Irish Times, were they meant to just do nothing while the government put out false stories about what they were saying?

Morlar wrote: »

There is a difference between reading something and agreeing with it.

In this case I did actually read it before disagreeing with it. I know this is confusing but try to keep up.

Except you clearly didn't read it, because you accused the judges of trying to avoid a salary reduction, whihc they clearly state several times they are not doing.

The_Minister

galwayrush wrote: »

This country can't afford the massive salaries such as those our Judges and other pampered 'elite' enjoy.

Good thing the judiciary agree with you

The issue here is not whether judges’ pay should be reduced, but rather how that reduction should be achieved, while effecting the least interference with the principle of independence of the Judiciary which that provision of the Constitution is designed to protect

BlaasForRafa

The_Minister wrote: »

The government selectively leaked parts of the memo in the Irish Times, were they meant to just do nothing while the government put out false stories about what they were saying?

Do I have to say it again? Perhaps if I put it in bold this time? The judges should not be allowed use an official website to post propoganda about their pay dispute

If the judges want to leak stuff to a paper, thats up to them. If they want to pay a host and put up their own website paid out of their exhorbitant salaries, fire away.

Morlar

The_Minister wrote: »

Except you clearly didn't read it, because you accused the judges of trying to avoid a salary reduction, whihc they clearly state several times they are not doing.

Just because a group say they are not motivated by trying to avoid a salary reduction, does not mean that this is actually the case.

When I said was that 'Their excuses for why they should be the exception and avoid a salary reduction seem flimsy, disingenous and far fetched in my view.'

You need to move on from trying to argue on the basis that I did not read a document, when your basing this assumption on the fact that I clearly do not agree with the document. As stated there is a difference between reading something and agreeing with it.

Morlar

Originally Posted by galwayrush View Post
This country can't afford the massive salaries such as those our Judges and other pampered 'elite' enjoy.

The_Minister wrote: »

Good thing the judiciary agree with you

If they really did agree then we would not need a refferendum to have their salaries reduced.

The_Minister

Morlar wrote: »

If they really did agree then we would not need a refferendum to have their salaries reduced.

There are over 143, and all but 15 have taken the paycuts voluntarily already.

So you want to spend a few million on a referendum to cut the pay of 15 people?
We'll be long out of the recession before this move pays for itself.

Coriolanus

The_Minister wrote: »

They have already said they are ok with the salery reduction - it's in the first paragraph of the memo.

All but 15 have already voluntarily taken paycuts

Their only issue is with how the paycuts are achieved.

took them a long time though. When it was first brought in, there was a survey done six months later and only something like a 20% had taken the voluntary cut.
I'd be interested to see the timeline on this, what the number s were at a given date and whether there was a relatively recent "rush" to take the cut.

Morlar

The_Minister wrote: »

There are over 143, and all but 15 have taken the paycuts voluntarily already.

So you want to spend a few million on a referendum to cut the pay of 15 people?
We'll be long out of the recession before this move pays for itself.

Which could all have been avoided if they had accepted the new economic realities.

There is a principle here which I am sure you are aware of.

The govt should not need to waste time and energy trying to convince one sector (who are paid from the public purse) that in a time of economic meltdown, and at a time when the country is borrowing billions to pay our bills that they should take a salary reduction.

The fact that this refferendum is necessary is purely the fault of the judiciary not the govt. in my view.

The number of judiciary who accept a salary reduction may have slowly crept up to 128 out of 143 over the last several years but how long did that take to happen ?

If we are ever in this position again we need to take steps to ensure we can handle such situations. The holdouts are undermining the govt in their goal to implement salary reductions across other highest paid sectors. The independent article description of them as 'recalcitrant' is accurate in my view. I'd go further and say that they clearly have no respect for the state. They are disconnected from reality and this is manifested by their selfish economic self interest expressed by their consistent refusal to accept salary reductions as being in the national interest.

If this is the only way to reduce their salaries (reduce their salaries does not mean some of them at some point in time but all of them when required) then so be it.

This will also send a message to others that the govt is actually serious, negotiations with consultants and so on will take on a new perspective in light of this. Previous FF govt were seen as weak on this, hence the croke park agreement and hence the consultants and others refusal to co-operate.

The principle behind this, and the potential widespread, far-ranging benefits to the state are worth a refferendum if there is no other choice, which appears to be the case.

Het-Field

Morlar wrote: »

Which could all have been avoided if they had accepted the new economic realities.

There is a principle here which I am sure you are aware of.

The govt should not need to waste time and energy trying to convince one sector (who are paid from the public purse) that in a time of economic meltdown, and at a time when the country is borrowing billions to pay our bills that they should take a salary reduction.

The fact that this refferendum is necessary is purely the fault of the judiciary not the govt. in my view.

The number of judiciary who accept a salary reduction may have slowly crept up to 128 out of 143 over the last several years but how long did that take to happen ?

If we are ever in this position again we need to take steps to ensure we can handle such situations. The holdouts are undermining the govt in their goal to implement salary reductions across other highest paid sectors. The independent article description of them as 'recalcitrant' is accurate in my view. I'd go further and say that they clearly have no respect for the state. They are disconnected from reality and this is manifested by their selfish economic self interest expressed by their consistent refusal to accept salary reductions as being in the national interest.

If this is the only way to reduce their salaries (reduce their salaries does not mean some of them at some point in time but all of them when required) then so be it.

This will also send a message to others that the govt is actually serious, negotiations with consultants and so on will take on a new perspective in light of this. Previous FF govt were seen as weak on this, hence the croke park agreement and hence the consultants and others refusal to co-operate.

The principle behind this, and the potential widespread, far-ranging benefits to the state are worth a refferendum if there is no other choice, which appears to be the case.

And they are???

Richard Hillman

I would rather prioritised the shoddy sentences that judges are handing out rather then their pay.

Einhard

I think it's only right and fair that judges not be exempt from pay cuts, and that the state have the right to set the remuneration levels of its employees, but the potential, however slim, for political interference in the judicial process is a concern. I hope there'll be some safeguards in place to minimise potential abuse.

tayto lover

"Pay peanuts, you get monkeys". The judges should be well paid but should do an expert job. There should be no political interference but their sentencing should be monitored to ensure proper decisions across the board. At the minute they are a bit like referees in so far as there are no two of them the same in their sentencing. One dishing out jail sentences and big fines and others giving community service and a slap on the wrists for similar crimes.