Haddington Road Agreement published

tayto lover

If the PS Unions had any integrity or guts there would be an all out strike.
But they are so much in the Govt's pockets that that this will be accepted and the workers will be sold out.
Time to get rid of these so-called Union leaders. They are far too close to the Govt ministers.

ardmacha

You can choose when to cry about contract/employment law but don't expect anyone to care when enhanced boom time conditions and wages are reduced according.

So suggesting that the concept of law be respected is "crying"? I think all citizens should expect some some respect from their government for law and procedure. The government could have chosen to argue with convential industrial relations that "enhanced boom time" wages be adjusted but they did not do so. At least some in the PS will now have real wages dating back to the last century, at a time when private sector wages are increasing.

Jawgap

ikarie wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they renege, its written into law, you signed up to a clause in the emergency legislation under collective bargaining, if all bets are off then the emergency legislation just comes back into force = pay cuts, increment freezes, longer hours, etc.....

Longer hours? I think you're confusing hours contracted with hours worked!!

I've already cut my hours back to the contracted amount, so my working week will be 6 to 7 hours shorter from next week

I'll also not be doing any more travelling outside working hours - even if it means more overnights away from home.

donegal11

ardmacha wrote: »

So suggesting that the concept of law be respected is "crying"? I think all citizens should expect some some respect from their government for law and procedure. The government could have chosen to argue with convential industrial relations that "enhanced boom time" wages be adjusted but they did not do so. At least some in the PS will now have real wages dating back to the last century, at a time when private sector wages are increasing.

Did unions respect their contracts when they went on strike for conditions that weren't in their contracts, I don't think so.

What do you mean the government didn't argue about "enhanced boom time wages" I think that's implied with the whole deficit. I don't think they need to expressly state they can't afford boom time wages?

Real Wages? what does that mean, can you show me the link to that bit of research comparing real pay of each worker over the period? or are you just making things up out of the top of your head? And Public sector wages are increasing yearly as well but there called increments.

Fizzical

The point being made is that Govt is not respecting contract law and have enshrined this in a new law.

No reply to this actual point?

You think it's a good thing that a govt, without asking it's people, decides to unilaterally break the laws that were made in consultation with the people over many years?

Godge

Fizzical wrote: »

The point being made is that Govt is not respecting contract law and have enshrined this in a new law.

No reply to this actual point?

You think it's a good thing that a govt, without asking it's people, decides to unilaterally break the laws that were made in consultation with the people over many years?

This question arose before in the context of the legislation imposing previous pay cuts and the pension levy. The answers to the breaking of contract law and the constitutionality of it came down to the following points:

(1) The country was in an emergency and there was no money
(2) The pay cuts/pension levy were applied to everyone but tiered with the highest paid losing most.

The question therefore, is whether the two points above hold in respect of the new legislation.

(1) If the government is considering income tax cuts as reported today or a €1 bn stimulus package for the construction industry as reported last week, can the argument really be sustained that the country is in an emergency and has no money?
(2) The cuts only apply to those earning over 65k and in a curious change from the past, apply to all income rather than just the income over 65. As a result, someone on 70k loses 5.5% down to 66,150 while the person on 64k loses nothing. Fair?

At the very least the current legislation will find it harder to meet the test. It is possible a court might say it didn't. That is why the Government is so anxious to have the unions ratify the agreement and register it down at the Labour Court as then they would point to the pay cuts as being agreed. I am astonished that the unions are falling for this.

ardmacha

Did unions respect their contracts when they went on strike for conditions that weren't in their contracts, I don't think so.

Did the contracts have a no-strike clause? Please provide details.

What do you mean the government didn't argue about "enhanced boom time wages" I think that's implied with the whole deficit. I don't think they need to expressly state they can't afford boom time wages?

They are not paying "boom-time" wages, these had already been reduced. If the government wishes to reduce people's wages then those people are entitled to some explanation as to why their wages are being reduced when other wages are increasing.

Real Wages? what does that mean, can you show me the link to that bit of research comparing real pay of each worker over the period? or are you just making things up out of the top of your head?

Not all of the pay increases were gain for the employee, there was inflation also. It is fine to say that someone's salary is reduced to 2004 levels, to eliminate the boom, but prices now are 18% higher than 2004 and will be 23% higher in 2016. So this person is not getting their real salary in 2003 but the real salary they got in 1999. Meanwhile people in the private sector are earning 20% more enjoying their services.

And Public sector wages are increasing yearly as well but there called increments.

the continual immature references to increments on this forum is a testament that the arguments of the posters are as bankrupt as Anglo Irish bank. Some individuals receive increments, as a consequence of experience, the public sector as a whole does not. I now pay significantly less for my car insurance than when I was less experienced at driving, although car insurance as whole has not decreased in aggregrate.

Even if you want to rant about increments, do you accept that my point is true for those who did not receive an increment?

donegal11

ardmacha wrote: »

They are not paying "boom-time" wages, these had already been reduced. If the government wishes to reduce people's wages then those people are entitled to some explanation as to why their wages are being reduced when other wages are increasing.

Nurses are crying about going back to work the same hours they had 3 years ago bringing them back to boom time conditions. If the private sector is apparently so good I don't see a rush of people leaving the harsh conditions of public sector for private sector jobs? There is nothing holding them in there current positions, one weeks notice and of they go to the massive salary increases of the private sector:rolleyes: leaving your point mute.

Not all of the pay increases were gain for the employee, there was inflation also. It is fine to say that someone's salary is reduced to 2004 levels, to eliminate the boom, but prices now are 18% higher than 2004 and will be 23% higher in 2016. So this person is not getting their real salary in 2003 but the real salary they got in 1999. Meanwhile people in the private sector are earning 20% more enjoying their services.

I know what real income is but show me where someone in the public sector is currently on there 2004 salary? or benchmark against private sector. just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. You must have some evidence to back up all these figures 18%, 23%, 20% proving how bad the public sector are treated?

ardmacha

I know what real income is but show me where someone in the public sector is currently on there 2004 salary? or benchmark against private sector. just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. You must have some evidence to back up all these figures 18%, 23%, 20% proving how bad the public sector are treated?

Since anyone over €65,000 will now have been cut by 20%+ (and please don't come back with semantics about the pension levy,
the worker doesn't have it and the government does have it), they will be in 2004 territory or worse.

just because you say it doesn't mean it's true.

You keep saying this to disrupt the thread. The PS cuts and inflation are public knowledge, a poster in this Economy forum referring to them should not have to post the details every time. If you wish to dispute my figures then show that others are correct.

You must have some evidence to back up all these figures 18%, 23%, 20% proving how bad the public sector are treated?

Of course there is evidence, inflation should be a well understood phenomenon to someone in a serious forum.
But since you seem unaware of it you can see the details here .

donegal11

ardmacha wrote: »

Since anyone over €65,000 will now have been cut by 20%+ (and please don't come back with semantics about the pension levy,
the worker doesn't have it and the government does have it), they will be in 2004 territory or worse.



You keep saying this to disrupt the thread. The PS cuts and inflation are public knowledge, a poster in this Economy forum referring to them should not have to post the details every time. If you wish to dispute my figures then show that others are correct.



Of course there is evidence, inflation should be a well understood phenomenon to someone in a serious forum.
But since you seem unaware of it you can see the details here .

Point is no one is working at there 2004 salary unless they were earning serious money and at the top of there salary scale, Someone earning 65k is nearly twice the average industrial wage. I don't care what the inflation rate is but I think they'll survive somehow.The vast majority of the public sector are nowhere near there 2004 level unless the majority of the public sector are earning over 65K.

ardmacha

Point is no one is working at there 2004 salary unless they were earning serious money and at the top of there salary scale, Someone earning 65k is nearly twice the average industrial wage. I don't care what the inflation rate is but I think they'll survive somehow

This isn't a useful point, people's ability to survive in some abstract sense should be irrelevant to the issue. The politics of envy should have no place in the management of public services, the concerns should be efficiency and proper management, not some sort of Marxist equalisation. Some jobs are paid better than others, the proper question is whether they are paid the rate for the job.
As noted on the other thread efficient employers don't say you are above the average industrial wage, they look at your productivity and whether you are contributing.

However I am glad to see that you agree that some people have real incomes in the last century, even if you think they deserve it because they are better paid than some. More fool them getting all of those degrees and experience that might put them ahead of the average.

donegal11

ardmacha wrote: »

This isn't a useful point, people's ability to survive in some abstract sense should be irrelevant to the issue. The politics of envy should have no place in the management of public services, the concerns should be efficiency and proper management, not some sort of Marxist equalisation. Some jobs are paid better than others, the proper question is whether they are paid the rate for the job.
As noted on the other thread efficient employers don't say you are above the average industrial wage, they look at your productivity and whether you are contributing.

However I am glad to see that you agree that some people have real incomes in the last century, even if you think they deserve it because they are better paid than some. More fool them getting all of those degrees and experience that might put them ahead of the average.

If they feel there worth more as stated already move to the private sector and get the spoils which they seem entitled too. If they are as productive and efficient it should be no problem if they are contributing accordingly, but it has to be said in the current public service payscales are based on time served rather then annual performance based reviews so effectively you could be at the top of your scale and be no more productive then the first day you walked through the door.

ardmacha

If they feel there worth more as stated already move to the private sector and get the spoils which they seem entitled too. If they are as productive and efficient it should be no problem if they are contributing accordingly,

So exactly what contribution to the State or the long term efficient management of public services is achieved by saying that the most productive can just leave, while the useless stay? What would a Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform propose policies to achieve this with support from those who like the idea of those more skilled and remunerated than themselves getting cuts.

Mr. teddywinkles

Fizzical wrote: »

The point being made is that Govt is not respecting contract law and have enshrined this in a new law.

No reply to this actual point?

You think it's a good thing that a govt, without asking it's people, decides to unilaterally break the laws that were made in consultation with the people over many years?

How can you introduce change in any way shape or form to an employees work conditions or pay without breaking contract?
If the contracts were never broken they have it for the rest of their employment which means retirement!

Good loser

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

How can you introduce change in any way shape or form to an employees work conditions or pay without breaking contract?
If the contracts were never broken they have it for the rest of their employment which means retirement!

Quite true. And if the employee(s) refused to negotiate their conditions could never be amended. Effectively their conditions could only be improved! Unreal.

This is how the TUI and others wanted to deal with CP 2.

notharrypotter

How can you introduce change in any way shape or form to an employees work conditions or pay without breaking contract?

Change is a part of employment and in most cases both sides will work out a compromise.

All private sector employees will have a contract of employment which is safe guarded by law and can only be changed with the consent of both parties.

Employment contracts would be viewed as a living entity and each subsequent agreed change overwrites the corresponding section of the previous agreement.

If I am correct Civil servants have a contract of employment which says something along the lines of they are employed at the whim of the relevant minister.
The Government with the stroke of a pen can alter the terms and conditions of all civil servants.
This is moving the goalposts after the game has started.
In this case the consent of the employees is not sought.

Maybe in the future civil service unions should be looking for a proper employment contract which outlines their terms and conditions.

ardmacha

notharrypotter wrote: »

Change is a part of employment and in most cases both sides will work out a compromise.

All private sector employees will have a contract of employment which is safe guarded by law and can only be changed with the consent of both parties.

Employment contracts would be viewed as a living entity and each subsequent agreed change overwrites the corresponding section of the previous agreement.

If I am correct Civil servants have a contract of employment which says something along the lines of they are employed at the whim of the relevant minister.
The Government with the stroke of a pen can alter the terms and conditions of all civil servants.
This is moving the goalposts after the game has started.
In this case the consent of the employees is not sought.

Maybe in the future civil service unions should be looking for a proper employment contract which outlines their terms and conditions.

What on earth would be the point in negotiating an employment contract when the government just passes a law abolishing it when it suits them?

Jawgap

donegal11 wrote: »

Point is no one is working at there 2004 salary unless they were earning serious money and at the top of there salary scale, Someone earning 65k is nearly twice the average industrial wage. I don't care what the inflation rate is but I think they'll survive somehow.The vast majority of the public sector are nowhere near there 2004 level unless the majority of the public sector are earning over 65K.

I'm one of the people earning more than 65k, and I'm interested in doing a bit more than just 'surviving' - my main issue is the complete failure of the government to take account of other measures that have been introduced that have eroded conditions of employment and saved money, as in cash money, not notional salary budgets.

And while my salary may be more than twice the average industrial wage, so too is my experience and my qualifications - unless the average industrial worker can point to a couple of masters degrees and 10+ years of international experience - nearly all of that, incidentally in the private sector.

donegal11 wrote: »

If they feel there worth more as stated already move to the private sector and get the spoils which they seem entitled too. If they are as productive and efficient it should be no problem if they are contributing accordingly, but it has to be said in the current public service payscales are based on time served rather then annual performance based reviews so effectively you could be at the top of your scale and be no more productive then the first day you walked through the door.

I'm due to start on a couple of projects in the UK in late July as a freelance contractor, with a private sector consultancy - and I'd no problem getting the work - one phone call and ten minutes.

I think one consequence of Haddington Road is that there will be a few more such as me - 'hybrid' workers operating working for both the private and public employers.

.....and yes the tax is being paid.

Godge

donegal11 wrote: »

If the private sector is apparently so good I don't see a rush of people leaving the harsh conditions of public sector for private sector jobs? There is nothing holding them in there current positions, one weeks notice and of they go to the massive salary increases of the private sector:rolleyes: leaving your point mute.

Actually, the latest CSO figures show that employment increased in the private sector in the last year while employment decreased in the public sector during the last year.

While a lot of the decrease in employment in the public service was due to retirement, a good portion of it would have taken up jobs in the private sector (I did so some years ago). The evidence does not support your position making your point moot.

Godge

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

How can you introduce change in any way shape or form to an employees work conditions or pay without breaking contract?
If the contracts were never broken they have it for the rest of their employment which means retirement!

Contracts implicitly include a requirement to adapt to "normal" change. Ordinary everyday change. So, for example, if you were hired to drive a particular truck, and your employer changed the truck for a new different truck, that change would be part of "normal" change. If your employer asked you to drive a bus, that would not be part of the original contract and would require negotiation and agreement.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

a good portion of it would have taken up jobs in the private sector

Since asking for a source is all the rage.....source?

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Since asking for a source is all the rage.....source?

Occam's Razor.

Private sector employment goes up
Public sector employment goes down
Unemployment only shows slight drop, little change in long-term unemployment.

Only place those public sector workers went (who didn't retire) went into the private sector.

Jawgap

I work in a small part of the PS. Up until 2008 we had 110 people in our organisation - some contractors, some temps, most 'permanent and pensionable.'

As of last week, we dipped below 80 for the first time - we now have 79 people - so about a 30% reduction.

I think we might be a reasonable proxy for the rest of the PS so here's were our departees went......

First to go were the contractors and temps - any contracts that came up were not renewed, regardless of the job they were doing - incredibly shortsighted, but the quickest way to reduce numbers.

A goodly portion of those who left in 2009/10 tended to be younger people who emigrated.

We've had people leave to have kids.

Our entire IT section left for jobs in the private sector over the course 2009 to 2011 - one guy left, then recruited 2 more to go with him!! The other 4 went to various other jobs - because of the recruitment freeze, we have to retain contractors to maintain the systems, but we can't do any development work.

We've had about 4/5 people go on early retirement.

One of the early retirees was a colleague, and where there 6 of us there are now 3 - the other 2 took up jobs in the private sector.

All told I'd say 11 of the 30 odd departees went to jobs in the private sector, probably more if you assume that the ones who emigrated also took jobs outside the public service in the countries they now find themselves.

donegal11

Jawgap wrote: »

I work in a small part of the PS. Up until 2008 we had 110 people in our organisation - some contractors, some temps, most 'permanent and pensionable.'

As of last week, we dipped below 80 for the first time - we now have 79 people - so about a 30% reduction.

I think we might be a reasonable proxy for the rest of the PS so here's were our departees went......

First to go were the contractors and temps - any contracts that came up were not renewed, regardless of the job they were doing - incredibly shortsighted, but the quickest way to reduce numbers.

A goodly portion of those who left in 2009/10 tended to be younger people who emigrated.

We've had people leave to have kids.

Our entire IT section left for jobs in the private sector over the course 2009 to 2011 - one guy left, then recruited 2 more to go with him!! The other 4 went to various other jobs - because of the recruitment freeze, we have to retain contractors to maintain the systems, but we can't do any development work.

We've had about 4/5 people go on early retirement.

One of the early retirees was a colleague, and where there 6 of us there are now 3 - the other 2 took up jobs in the private sector.

All told I'd say 11 of the 30 odd departees went to jobs in the private sector, probably more if you assume that the ones who emigrated also took jobs outside the public service in the countries they now find themselves.

So the people in the only booming sector(IT) left to get jobs in the private sector, hardy surprising. But like many other companies it may not be part of there core competencies and can be brought in when required with contractors. In relation to IT the salary scales in the public service are based on time served which definitely works against knowledge based IT workers. And I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of public sector workers are not in IT.

I notice that people(except IT) weren't actually leaving jobs for better ones in the private sector which has being the assertion but rather they were being forced out and far from finding jobs in the private sector here had to move abroad to find any work. No permanent members outside IT left?

In relation to retirees it's was because of the great conditions they had in terms of pensions(keeping entitlements at existing rates)in the public sector they left rather then bad ones forcing them out. Like a guard retiring with a pension at 50 and taking a handy number as a security person.

It really puts things into perspective when only around 4 people out of 24 got jobs in ireland(outside IT) since leaving the public sector three years ago and how in demand they are in.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Occam's Razor.

Private sector employment goes up
Public sector employment goes down
Unemployment only shows slight drop, little change in long-term unemployment.

Only place those public sector workers went (who didn't retire) went into the private sector.

Your argument assumes they didn't emigrate, assumes they didn't take a career break, assumes they didn't join the unemployment line, assumes that the increase in employment in the private sector comes from those who left the public sector where as it can be completely explained from people previoulsy unemployed or from new entrants to the labour market. Furthermore for it to back up the argument that they left the public sector to join the private sector, it assumes that they voluntarily left the public sector and weren't contractors who didn't have their contracts renewed. In short, you have done some rudimentary analysis of a single CSO statistic and come up with a conclusion that would appears to be supported by making a bunch of assumptions.

ardmacha

And I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of public sector workers are not in IT.

Is that not the point. The Haddington Road deal is carefully structured so that the majority of people are not cut, but that those with skills who had received got a premium for those skills, as they do in the economy generally, will be cut.

In broader terms the whole thrust of this is in entirely the wrong direction. Faced with a new to have less staff they could have improved productivity, have better ways of doing things, more computerisation etc. Instead they encourage the IT staff to leave and just dump extra hours on everyone to patch over the cracks. And this guy Howlin purports to be a "Labour" minister!

The discriminatory cuts are only coming now, and the gap will only get larger in the next 3 years. The damage will not be immediate, the talented will drift way or become demoralised and performance will suffer over time, but the real effects won't show until after the next election, exactly the way these politicians like it.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Occam's Razor.

Private sector employment goes up
Public sector employment goes down
Unemployment only shows slight drop, little change in long-term unemployment.

Only place those public sector workers went (who didn't retire) went into the private sector.

A few more people working part-time and concentrated in the over 35 category.

CSO:

Full-time employment fell by 3,700 or 0.3% in the year to Q1 2013. This was off-set by an increase in part-time employment of 24,200 or 5.6% over the year.
See tables 1a and 1b.

Nothing to get excited about if people are trying to push a "the private sector is getting better - why should the PS take cuts?" argument.

Jawgap

In my experience, 3 types of people are leaving.......

....the younger staff - why stay when you can travel or get more money elsewhere. If i wasn't tied down with family I'd be working in Canada!

....women to have third kids - three is the new two. I reckon the anti-family nature of Haddington Road will lead to more of this group leaving - less pay and increased childcare costs will make the decision for them.

....the skilled & experienced - yes, those who have the skills are leaving and getting jobs in Ireland (and elsewhere). The missus is among this category, although she jumped ship back in early 2009 when she saw the writing on the wall.

Yes, you can contract in IT as we are doing but what we've found is that it costs a lot more, and there's no continuity - the agency sends who it likes so we've no 'buy in' - the people are only interested in maintaining our systems, not improving them, which is a problem given the specialist nature of some of the software we've developed and use.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Your argument assumes they didn't emigrate, assumes they didn't take a career break, assumes they didn't join the unemployment line, assumes that the increase in employment in the private sector comes from those who left the public sector where as it can be completely explained from people previoulsy unemployed or from new entrants to the labour market. Furthermore for it to back up the argument that they left the public sector to join the private sector, it assumes that they voluntarily left the public sector and weren't contractors who didn't have their contracts renewed. In short, you have done some rudimentary analysis of a single CSO statistic and come up with a conclusion that would appears to be supported by making a bunch of assumptions.

If you go back to my original post on the issue, I said a good proportion of those leaving have left for the private sector, I never said them all. Twisting the intervening debate to suggest I ignored other options is not correct.

I accept it is a rudimentary analysis but it is a rudimentary analysis supported by the global figures and by anecdotal accounts such as Jawgaps.

To put it another way, at any time in the economic cycle there is a flow of staff to and from the public sector to and from the private sector. What the numbers are suggesting (whether it is the recruitment freeze, the CSO figures, the documented pay rises in substantial parts of the private sector) is that flow at the current time is from the public sector to the private sector. If you went back 10 years, to the time just after the first benchmarking report, you would see the flow going the other way as the public sector rapidly expanded and wages there were on the rise.

It defies all logic to suggest otherwise. Even the increase in part-time work pointed out by Noodler can be explained by a proportion of the extra private sector jobs being taken by those who retired early from the public service but who need to supplement their pension as it is too small.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

If you go back to my original post on the issue, I said a good proportion of those leaving have left for the private sector, I never said them all.

Godge wrote: »

What the numbers are suggesting (whether it is the recruitment freeze, the CSO figures, the documented pay rises in substantial parts of the private sector)

You seem to be using adjectives you can't really justify!

Godge wrote: »

that flow at the current time is from the public sector to the private sector.

Really, if 3,000 PS workers left last year (or whatever) and 200 of them went to the private sector (rather than retiring), would you be describing this as a "flow"?

The only way you left the PS, for the most part, was on excellent retirement and redundancy packages. Its not like you quit because you weren't being paid enough and decided you'd earn more in the Private Sector.

Godge wrote: »

Even the increase in part-time work pointed out by Noodler can be explained by a proportion of the extra private sector jobs being taken by those who retired early from the public service

You haven't shown this to be the case at all.

Godge wrote: »

but who need to supplement their pension as it is too small.

I sincerely doubt that applies to anything other than a tiny proportion of the people who were targeted and left under any of the early retirement schemes.