Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

If that's true then they were dead right to leave.
Imagine being asked to take part but then having no say or no vote.
Bloody cheek of Enda Kenny.
The Garda are dead right to leave and should go on strike for better conditions.

They can't for valid reasons, Gardaí cannot dictate policy to the government otherwise we have a police state. My keeping them in another room they can take part in the talks in an informal manner.

tayto lover

jh79 wrote: »

They can't for valid reasons, Gardaí cannot dictate policy to the government otherwise we have a police state. My keeping them in another room they can take part in the talks in an informal manner.

So you can talk till the cows come home but what you say has no relevence and you have no vote either.

Now who would agree to go in for those reasons? Again -- Madness.

Chips Lovell

I think you're misunderstanding the unique position of the Gardai under law. Gardai prohibited from joining a union. The GRA isn't a union. The GRA is also prohibited from associating itself with any body outside the Gardai (in this case ICTU). They also can't strike.

ardmacha

This whole process is depressing and is indicative of how little has changed in this country. There was Croke Park agreement which led to restructuring of real value to the proper management of the PS, decades of accretion of inadequate practice etc could be swept away and people moved etc. As noted here by many people there was some question as to whether these reforms had been applied to an equal extent in all sectors, and it it clear that they were now. Any review of Croke Park needed to address the detail of these sectors and propose a means of extending reform here to get the full savings. Instead though there is no evidence of any analysis of anything. There is no sense of addressing unwise increases in the boom and the drivers of those increases. Were Sunday rates for ambulance drivers the cause of any increase in the PS pay bill, are there more Sundays than there used to be. We get these x% numbers floating about without reference to what increases there were in the boom or what the changes in pay have been generally since 2008. This is a political process which perpetuates the concept of PS pay being something determined in a fact free environment in closed rooms by people who feel no need to justify the process other than the simple power relationship involved. All of this runs entirely counter to proper management and the requirement of a proper PS that people being paid the going rate and being expected to work for it.

This is an unprincipled process run by unprincipled people.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding the unique position of the Gardai under law. Gardai prohibited from joining a union. The GRA isn't a union. The GRA is also prohibited from associating itself with any body outside the Gardai (in this case ICTU). They also can't strike.

Unique alright but only insofar as they have no rights. How can that be fair?
They should certainly protest and fail to comply until they get rights.
What kind of society fails to give their police force any rights?

Chips Lovell

Most societies have similar laws on their books.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Most societies have similar laws on their books.

So it's a case of "take what you are given" ? Hardly fair.
I hope they go on strike as this shower will give them nothing.

creedp

tayto lover wrote: »

Unique alright but only insofar as they have no rights. How can that be fair?
They should certainly protest and fail to comply until they get rights.
What kind of society fails to give their police force any rights?

The guards do protest, remember the blue flu and the present threat to stop using private phones, laptops, etc, etc. However, the issue here is there have no legal right to strike or join a union. This isn't something new. The guards aren't protesting to gain the right to join a union, they are protesting to protect their pay and condition.

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

So it's a case of "take what you are given" ? Hardly fair.
I hope they go on strike as this shower will give them nothing.

These kind of laws are there because of the unique position the police forces occupy in society. As those who're meant to be upholding the law, they can't withdraw their services or attempt to act as a political force, for obvious reasons. Similarly, you'll find that most armies are prohibited from mutiny.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

These kind of laws are there because of the unique position the police forces occupy in society. As those who're meant to be upholding the law, they can't withdraw their services or attempt to act as a political force, for obvious reasons. Similarly, you'll find that most armies are prohibited from mutiny.

A "unique position" with no rights.
Yeah right.

tayto lover

creedp wrote: »

The guards do protest, remember the blue flu and the present threat to stop using private phones, laptops, etc, etc. However, the issue here is there have no legal right to strike or join a union. This isn't something new. The guards aren't protesting to gain the right to join a union, they are protesting to protect their pay and condition.

But I am being told they have no right to protest. So how is that fair?

noodler

tayto lover wrote: »

But I am being told they have no right to protest. So how is that fair?

They can and have said they will picket Government meetings.

So they can protest.

They can't strike though and for damn good reason.

tayto lover

noodler wrote: »

They can and have said they will picket Government meetings.

So they can protest.

They can't strike though and for damn good reason.

Enda Kenny was misleading when he told them to go back into the talks though.
They have no representation where it matters.
How can anyone who is not a Garda speak up for them as they don't know their issues.? They should be allowed representation on their own bat the same as any other group and not be treated like they're second class.

tayto lover

creedp wrote: »

He does know how to do emotion.

He's very good at emotion alright, very very very good.

Warden13

Ah the poor Garda sure what have they to complain about state job pension free into coppers life is good for them but then they go to buy a pint whoops no money because they have to buy and pay for everything they have not like the bloody social who get anything they want they have more disposable income than a hard working Garda at the height of the boom there was 250000 people on the scratcher the entitled class now it's up to 450000 people of that 200000 would go back to work because they want to work not have entitlements they want jobs and a purpose in life not a medical card.Oh them Garda are so lucky just to exist and not live life.

creedp

creedp wrote: »

I know a lot of people don't/won't accept this view but in reallity even if another pay cut doesn't materialise (which I think is very unlikely - some form of pay cut will have to happen for the Govt to save face - its all about the media image here) it will be a long time before public servants get a pay rise so the relative value of their wages will fall over time by maintaining the pay freeze provide for in CP1. Maybe CP2 could ensure that the current pay freeze stays in place for 4 more years.

As has been pointed out here already pay increases are becoming more common/the norm in the private sector as the recession bottoms out. Maintaining a public sector pay freeze will continue to erode the [perceived] premium over the average [whatever that means] private sector wage and therefore result in real cuts in PS wages over time. This approach would have a much lessor shock factor for all sides meaning that industrial peace could be maintained while continuing to realise more savings from efficiency reforms which must continue to happen. At the end of the day if we come out of this with a substantially more efficient PS combined with a reduced PS pay bill I think it would be a positive outcome.

Do they not get a pay increment if they haven't reached their salary limit ? Because in everybody else's world that is a pay increase.:rolleyes:

So 6 pay increases since their employer went bankrupt, sounds very generous.

barneystinson

Deleted User wrote: »

Do they not get a pay increment if they haven't reached their salary limit ? Because in everybody else's world that is a pay increase.:rolleyes:

Not paying someone an increment which under their contract they are entitled to (subject to satisfactory performance), is a pay CUT. i.e. the effect of the action is that the individual is being paid less than their contract of employment states they should be paid - that is the very definition of a pay cut surely?

Paying someone in accordance with their existing contract and not increasing the salary scales is a pay FREEZE.

Not honouring the contracts of PS workers is only going to result in the people who actually have real-world marketable skills/experience jumping ship - the dead wood that the PS bashers believe is causing all of the inefficiencies will stay on to the bitter end. That's what you get when you use a blunt instrument to perform delicate surgery.

Chips Lovell

Yes. Increments are not pay increases. They're part of the core salary agreement.

jank

Seems all the talk at the moment is about pay, what about reforms and redundencies? In the long run they are key to a well functioning and efficient PS.

volauvent

Lumping all public sector workers together isn't really fair.
Gardai however should be compensated for the risk they carry with their line of work.
They should not be put in the firing line.
Target the people who are lucky enough to sit in an office all day and don't have to tolerate risk of violence, verbal abuse etc.
I am one of the office workers BTW.

Lumbo

volauvent wrote: »

Lumping all public sector workers together isn't really fair.
Gardai however should be compensated for the risk they carry with their line of work.
They should not be put in the firing line.
Target the people who are lucky enough to sit in an office all day and don't have to tolerate risk of violence, verbal abuse etc.
I am one of the office workers BTW.

Allowances should be paid to employees put in danger. Btw it's not only Guards who suffer abuse from members of the public. Hospital staff, especially A&E, have been a target for years. Local Authority staff have a fair share of incidents, one of my colleagues (office staff) was assaulted this week.

It's regular allowances that are the problem. someone still recieving an allowance but never does the work. There's hundreds of examples and they are costly and difficult to get rid of.

murphaph

Lumbo wrote: »

Allowances should be paid to employees put in danger

No they shouldn't. The core pay of a Garda, prison officer or whatever should be set at the appropriate level that takes account of the (potential) danger.

Nobody applies to be one of these things without realising that they might run into problems because of the job some day. These are occupational hazards.

Paulzx

murphaph wrote: »

.

Nobody applies to be one of these things without realising that they might run into problems because of the job some day. These are occupational hazards.

Absolutely correct. They also sign up knowing they will work nights, unsocial hours etc. so can't cry about actually having to work these hours.


They also realise the salary before they sign up and calculate is it worthwhile doing the job for the renumeration on offer. There are no grounds to moan about the job conditions on this basis. You went in with your eyes open.

The problem arises when all of a sudden the renumeration decreases and the individual then feels that all of a sudden the downsides and unsocial hours outweigh the monetry reward.

Many will stay on the basis of having no choice due to mortgages etc. but unfortunately this leads to a demoralised, unproductive workforce.

Many that have no ties will bail. The Australian police are sniffing around again and young, unencumbered gardai are showing huge interest in it.

So you lose the younger, enthusiastic members and the older members retire. The job is left with the static, pissed off employees.

It's not exactly how any good HR department would plan to run it's workforce

Medu

volauvent wrote: »

Lumping all public sector workers together isn't really fair.
Gardai however should be compensated for the risk they carry with their line of work.
They should not be put in the firing line.
Target the people who are lucky enough to sit in an office all day and don't have to tolerate risk of violence, verbal abuse etc.
I am one of the office workers BTW.

And they are. It's a fairly low skilled job with a average wage far above it's skills requirement.

kippy

Medu wrote: »

And they are. It's a fairly low skilled job with a average wage far above it's skills requirement.

Why are our politicians paid so much then?

Medu

kippy wrote: »

Why are our politicians paid so much then?

What has that got to do with anything? But I will bite and say that to be a good politician requires a certain skill-set. Whether our politicians possess those skills is another matter, and is one that us the voters can often take the blame for.

BKtje

Lumbo wrote: »

Allowances should be paid to employees put in danger. Btw it's not only Guards who suffer abuse from members of the public. Hospital staff, especially A&E, have been a target for years. Local Authority staff have a fair share of incidents, one of my colleagues (office staff) was assaulted this week.

Could you expand on "a fair share of incidents" please? Office workers generally have some of the safest jobs going as exposure to the public, money/valuables, hazardous materials and unsafe working conditions are minimal. I assume that you aren't suggesting that local authority staff be paid hazard pay?

On another note I am sorry to hear that your colleague was assaulted (I assume due to his/her work?). Having had a similar experience, I know that it can come as a shock and completely out of the blue.

BKtje

Medu wrote: »

And they are. It's a fairly low skilled job with a average wage far above it's skills requirement.

Why do you feel that being a Guard is a low skilled job? They have to know how to react in a large variety of situations, to keep their calm while possibly dealing with hysterical people in difficult situations? I believe the minimal time spent training is two years (open to correction as am not really sure). Personally I feel that being a Guard is a very difficult job requiring a large skill set and that's before we even bring up the danger element.

Whether all Guards have these skills is another issue for another thread but very few employers have a level skill set among its employees.

kippy

Medu wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything? But I will bite and say that to be a good politician requires a certain skill-set. Whether our politicians possess those skills is another matter, and is one that us the voters can often take the blame for.

When you go out an tar every member of a certain profession with the same brush as being low skilled, and as such, deserving of a far lesser salary, it's got everything to do with it........

Head The Wall

barneystinson wrote: »

Not paying someone an increment which under their contract they are entitled to (subject to satisfactory performance), is a pay CUT. i.e. the effect of the action is that the individual is being paid less than their contract of employment states they should be paid - that is the very definition of a pay cut surely?

Paying someone in accordance with their existing contract and not increasing the salary scales is a pay FREEZE.

It's amazing that peoples understanding of this is so far off the mark. All the govt has to do is change the terms of the employees contract, it really is that simple and it has happened twice already.