Haddington Road Agreement published

Godge

The new Haddington Road agreement has been published. Here is the link to it:


http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/05/20130523haddington.pdf



For reference purposes, here is the previous attempt at an agreement, the February proposals:


http://www.lrc.ie/documents/2013/LRC%20Proposals%20_FINAL.pdf


As I have previously pointed out, this document contains significant climb-downs by the Government in the face of the union rejection:

- restoration timetable agreed for pay cuts
- increments restored for those over 65k, albeit with short delays
- premium pay on Sundays unaffected
- sectoral conditions changed
- increases in working hours capped
- more permanent jobs for teachers


There is much more in the detail of the concessions. What do people think?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

In my position (civil servant on 40k) it could have been much, much worse if I'm being honest.

Nody

That the government (any flavour) should grow a bigger set of gonads but hey if it delivers the savings (or pseudo savings of "this should save money in the future maybe sort of" of the original deal) required to get Ireland back on the market it's acceptable (i.e. the over all goal is to get back on the market after all so if this gets the government there then that's at least an ok deal).

mariaalice

Godge wrote: »

The new Haddington Road agreement has been published. Here is the link to it:


http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/05/20130523haddington.pdf



For reference purposes, here is the previous attempt at an agreement, the February proposals:


http://www.lrc.ie/documents/2013/LRC%20Proposals%20_FINAL.pdf


As I have previously pointed out, this document contains significant climb-downs by the Government in the face of the union rejection:

- restoration timetable agreed for pay cuts
- increments restored for those over 65k, albeit with short delays
- premium pay on Sundays unaffected
- sectoral conditions changed
- increases in working hours capped
- more permanent jobs for teachers


There is much more in the detail of the concessions. What do people think?

One mans clime down is another mans negotiated resolution.:P

Godge

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Financial-Emergency-Measures-in-the-Public-Interest-Amendment-Bill-memo-2013.pdf


For those who are interested, above link is to the draft legislation to implement the pay-cuts.

Interestingly, there are quite severe cuts for some public service pensioners. The gold-plated pensions are losing their sheen.

ikarie

Looks like they recycled the old agreement and just put a new cover on it and changed the page numbers.
You are mad if ye accept it. You will never ever never get your conditions back, the pay legislation would be by far the better option or industrial action your Union heads should leave for pedaling this ****e
this is a BAD agreement trust me on this and the sunscreen.

Kristopherus

Godge wrote: »

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Financial-Emergency-Measures-in-the-Public-Interest-Amendment-Bill-memo-2013.pdf


For those who are interested, above link is to the draft legislation to implement the pay-cuts.

Interestingly, there are quite severe cuts for some public service pensioners. The gold-plated pensions are losing their sheen.

Those gold-plated pensions should have been halved. Who needs €150k to €200+k to live in their later years?:mad:

whiteandlight

Most of the "concessions" for teachers are things that any decent employer would have put in place in the first place, like the panel for fixed term teachers (which has been used at primary school level successfully for years). The expert group to be established should have been done years ago as the current system of tiny short term contracts is doing untold damage to our students never mind the insecurity for teachers. I picked up a Junior Cert maths class this year and I am their 5th teacher in 3 years and there are classes up and down the country where this is the case. This is terribly unsettling for students and parents.

There is also still no recognition of the fact that those of us who have been doing S and S for the pension benefits getting any recognition of it. The current proposal gives all teachers, including those who would have started S and S in September the same as those of us who have been doing it for years.

Delighted its been rejected by our unions. Cut away on the pay and leave our terms and conditions alone. And while your at it, sort out some of the problems that short term contracts are doing to students.

hmmm

Pension cuts have been slipped in quietly, I'm surprised the government hasn't made a bigger deal of this.

As for the main agreement, the important thing is that people in the PS on over 65 grand have been protected, and we can focus cuts on the privileged in society, like home help hours, social welfare cuts and raising private sector taxes such as pension levies.

ardmacha

As for the main agreement, the important thing is that people in the PS on over 65 grand have been protected,

In what way have they been protected when they are being cut at a time when pay generally in the economy is rising? The English language is the first casualty of this forum when people can shamelessly declare black to be white.

Rightwing

I'm delighted with this new agreeement, that name croke park was so yesterday. The new name sounds better, as for the detail, I don't give a fcuk,,,,the country is too bust :mad:

Mr Cumulonimbus

How is this new deal going to be implemented this time? Will unions who vote yes have it applied to their members and those who vote no being subject to government legislation to force through cuts?

Or will all unions be bound by ICTU's college voting system whichever way it goes, with the government then acting on the result of this decision?

ardmacha

You have to wonder if this legislation is constitutional as every shred of contract law is abolished. TCD has existed for over 400 years, the Mater Hospital for over 150 years, yet every since agreement or contract they've made, whether spending public money or not, can be altered at the whim of the Minister, a singularly unprincipled individual. Yet so called "right wingers" welcome this overthrow of law in favour of political expediency, so long as it directed at public servants. No doubt this will be directed at others in the future, although I imagine the Fingletons of this world will remain untouchable.

whiteandlight

ardmacha wrote: »

You have to wonder if this legislation is constitutional as every shred of contract law is abolished. TCD has existed for over 400 years, the Mater Hospital for over 150 years, yet every since agreement or contract they've made, whether spending public money or not, can be altered at the whim of the Minister, a singularly unprincipled individual. Yet so called "right wingers" welcome this overthrow of law in favour of political expediency, so long as it directed at public servants. No doubt this will be directed at others in the future, although I imagine the Fingletons of this world will remain untouchable.

2.2.3 does not seem like it is legal. I read that as meaning the contracts are worthless as they can be changed at the whim of the minister?

creedp

hmmm wrote: »

As for the main agreement, the important thing is that people in the PS on over 65 grand have been protected, and we can focus cuts on the privileged in society, like home help hours, social welfare cuts and raising private sector taxes such as pension levies.

Interesting that when a PS gets a pay cut it is described as 'being protected' This is from someone who is totally unaffected by the cut and if a worker probably protected from a tax increase. Some objectivity there!

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

In what way have they been protected when they are being cut at a time when pay generally in the economy is rising? The English language is the first casualty of this forum when people can shamelessly declare black to be white.

No, statistics is the first casualty of this forum. Sadly the same rudimentary analysis of statistics gets passed off as fact time and time again.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How is this new deal going to be implemented this time? Will unions who vote yes have it applied to their members and those who vote no being subject to government legislation to force through cuts?

Or will all unions be bound by ICTU's college voting system whichever way it goes, with the government then acting on the result of this decision?

Looks like every union for itself this time. No ICTU binding decision over all unions. From an Irish Times article today:

...........The biggest structural change in the revised blueprint is that it is, in effect, a series of bilateral plans agreed in principle with unions representing staff in different parts of the public service.
This means that, on this occasion, each individual union will have to decide for itself whether to accept or reject the proposals. There will be no overall decision made by the public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions based on an aggregate outcome of individual union ballots............

Godge

You have to wonder if this deal is going to get any further than the last one:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0524/452312-haddington-road-agreement/


ASTI have rejected it


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-reject-new-pay-deal-29292502.html

As have the TUI, and they will not ballot.

But... SIPTU and IMPACT have recommended it to their members.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/strike-fears-grow-as-teachers-reject-pay-proposals-1.1404858

"Employment law and industrial relations specialists last night said the unions could potentially face legal action from members if they were not allowed to vote on the new proposals and their terms and conditions were then worsened."

Who are these employment law and industrial relations specialists? I would be interested in reading this legal advice.

Going Forward

Idiotic titles for these agreements.

Can they not be called the May 2013 agreement etc instead of dragging a placename into it?

Vizzy

Going Forward wrote: »

Idiotic titles for these agreements.

Can they not be called the May 2013 agreement etc instead of dragging a placename into it?

It hasn't been agreed yet so it might have to be renamed as the June 2013 agreement.

sean200

creedp wrote: »

Interesting that when a PS gets a pay cut it is described as 'being protected' This is from someone who is totally unaffected by the cut and if a worker probably protected from a tax increase. Some objectivity there!

what happens in the public sector will happen in the private sector but the one billion cuts in the public sector will cause approx 10000 job to go in private sector so in real terms it is a lose lose for the private sector

sean200

Godge wrote: »

You have to wonder if this deal is going to get any further than the last one:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0524/452312-haddington-road-agreement/


ASTI have rejected it


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-reject-new-pay-deal-29292502.html

As have the TUI, and they will not ballot.

But... SIPTU and IMPACT have recommended it to their members.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/strike-fears-grow-as-teachers-reject-pay-proposals-1.1404858

"Employment law and industrial relations specialists last night said the unions could potentially face legal action from members if they were not allowed to vote on the new proposals and their terms and conditions were then worsened."

Who are these employment law and industrial relations specialists? I would be interested in reading this legal advice.

what happens if you are a teacher but not in the TUI or the ASTI ???

Jawgap

It still doesn't address the fundamental problem in the PS - which is too many staff doing the wrong work in some areas while other areas of genuine demand are starved of resources to facilitate these "legacy" activities and the staff retained to deliver them.

maryishere

sean200 wrote: »

but the one billion cuts in the public sector will cause approx 10000 job to go in private sector so in real terms it is a lose lose for the private sector

The taxes the private sector pay go to support the public sector. The public sector is overpaid and over-pensioned and works statistically shorter hours and takes more sickies than the private sector, so if public sector pay is reduced back a bit to more realistic levels it can only be good for the private sector in the long term. The country simply cannot afford a highly paid and pensioned public sector. International competiveness is important.

Dannyboy83

ardmacha wrote: »

You have to wonder if this legislation is constitutional as every shred of contract law is abolished.
TCD has existed for over 400 years, the Mater Hospital for over 150 years, yet every since agreement or contract they've made, whether spending public money or not, can be altered at the whim of the Minister, a singularly unprincipled individual.
Yet so called "right wingers" welcome this overthrow of law in favour of political expediency, so long as it directed at public servants. No doubt this will be directed at others in the future, although I imagine the Fingletons of this world will remain untouchable.

Put it in an American context; rushing the patriot act through in a time of national emergency and people can see the issue.

For some reason, we do not seem to be able to look inward and apply the same criticism...

Yes, the budget emergency is crucial, but solving it by giving a government unlimited authority is no more a solution than shooting yourself in the brain to beat cancer.

whiteandlight

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Put it in an American context; rushing the patriot act through in a time of national emergency and people can see the issue.

For some reason, we do not seem to be able to look inward and apply the same criticism...

Yes, the budget emergency is crucial, but solving it by giving a government unlimited authority is no more a solution than shooting yourself in the brain to beat cancer.

I have emailed every labour to ask about this. I'm waiting for my pay cut, it's better than the alternative and I know the countries in a mess. However this legislation essentially gives the minister carte Blanche to change terms and conditions of contracts at whim. That's madness!

carpejugulum

Too soft. It's time to break the unions.

Jawgap

carpejugulum wrote: »

Too soft. It's time to break the unions.

.....and just how would you do that?

It's a bit like Capone in the Untouchables, everyone knows how to do it, it's who wants to cross them to do it!

Kristopherus

Jawgap wrote: »

It still doesn't address the fundamental problem in the PS - which is too many staff doing the wrong work in some areas while other areas of genuine demand are starved of resources to facilitate these "legacy" activities and the staff retained to deliver them.

How do you know that? Have you assessed the PS thoroughly??????

Jawgap

Kristopherus wrote: »

How do you know that? Have you assessed the PS thoroughly??????

Not thoroughly, but I work in the PS and work regularly and on an ongoing basis with a number of staff-heavy departments and agencies and my experience is that very few are fit for purpose.

They are not over resourced per se, but their staffing and resourcing is not configured to meet service demand. I've described it as 'lumpy' - the wrong people in the wrong places doing the wrong work.

It's also very monolithic - name one agency that is genuinely multi-departmental? Or any non-constitutional body or executive agency that is accountable (there's a laugh!!) to the Oireachtas instead of the minister?

Instead of having agencies and projects directed to meet and address problems, they are configured to suit the parent department and the minister. That leads to duplication, overlap and redundancy (not the good kind).

As a minimum there should be proper redeployment and redundancy programmes in place, otherwise we'll continue to try and bang square pegs into round holes.

creedp

Jawgap wrote: »

It's also very monolithic - name one agency that is genuinelymulti-departmental? Or any non-constitutional body or executive agency that is accountable (there's a laugh!!) to the Oireachtas instead of the minister?

Instead of having agencies and projects directed to meet and address problems, they are configured to suit the parent department and the minister. That leads to duplication, overlap and redundancy (not the good kind).

The highlighted text above shows why we have real problems with reform in the public sector - no Minister will allow reform which impinge on his patch. Who do you think sets up these quangoes? Who do you think decides on the senior people to staff these quangoes? Who do you think decides on getting rid of these quangoes? Very easy of course to blame one quarter all the time ..