Public Service work to rule today (question)

dvpower · 26-01-2010 09:25PM

Tough talk. The work to rule was never going to achieve anything. The unions need to get serious and either drop the whole thing or start escalating massively.

At a special delegate conference this afternoon members of the civil public and services union CPSU decided to take stronger action from tomorrow morning and to escalate the action again from next Monday.

CPSU general secretary Blair Horan said there was a clear mandate for more intensive action and “the Government now has a fight on its hands”

He said that from tomorrow staff were told of further unannounced action which could affect entire regions. He said that the CPSU strike committee would meet on Monday to consider a further escalation.

He said that such escalated action could see staff taken off the pay roll. He said that if staff were removed from the pay roll there would be a strike.

dvpower · 26-01-2010 09:27PM

doc_17 wrote: »

This work to rule is a minor step and shouldn't really inconvienece too many pople that much altogether. Think it's just a warning shot to the gov to stay away from pay next time round

The stated aim of the work to rule is not to get the government to stay away from further pay cuts. It is to overturn the recent pay cuts.

Guy:Incognito · 26-01-2010 09:45PM

Japer wrote: »

A cheap comment. He / she could have had a computer for ages, or be posting from a friend / library or relatives connection. At least he / she is not posting while he / she is getting paid to do work by the taxpayer.

Or maybe I still live in my mothers house because I cant afford my own.:)

Lawros Tache wrote: »

the comment was designed to wind up one half of the arguement (thanks for biting), just like his and other's are designed to wind up the other half... i'm not on either by the way, i just cant believe how what is supposedly one of the most educated populations in Europe have fallen hook, line & sinker for the divide and conquer tactics of this government, .

Brian Cowan did'nt leave me queing with 3 other people for an hour to have a birthday party in full view. Sometimes people make their own beds.

Flex · 26-01-2010 10:52PM

SIPTU urged its members in the DAA to accept proposals which will see nearly 400 people being put out of work as well as reductions in pay. Why didnt they just stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to accept the fact the employers in this instance were unable to afford their staff expenses?

Will there be strikes and work-to-rule threats and pledges to obstruct any reforms of the DAA made now on behalf of those SIPTU members who are soon to be made unemployed and subjected to paycuts?

http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0126/daa.html

:rolleyes:

ardmacha · 26-01-2010 11:02PM

Why didnt they just stick their fingers in their ears

Perhaps because these paycuts and job losses were negotiated.

Flex · 27-01-2010 11:28PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps because these paycuts and job losses were negotiated.

The negotiating stances were worlds apart. The PS unions entered negotiations on the basis that they wouldnt accept paycuts, job losses or pension cuts and a demand that the government double the forecasted duration of time it was going to have to keep borrowing to 8 years (Jack O Connor amazingly somehow didnt think this would result in more debt). A promise regards implementing reform, that was supposed to start 10 years ago in exchange for benchmarking, and references to 'fat-cats' who could be taxed to bridge the deficit were what was on offer.

Wishbone Ash · 28-01-2010 10:39AM

Flex wrote: »

The PS unions entered negotiations on the basis that they wouldnt accept paycuts, job losses or pension cuts

Standard practise.

If you were haggling when buying a car, would you make your highest offer first?

Flex · 28-01-2010 11:28AM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Standard practise.

If you were haggling when buying a car, would you make your highest offer first?

"I want this car. I wont pay you, but instead I wont attempt to cost your business revenue through deliberate action or inaction on my part. Let the negotiations commence"

Riskymove · 28-01-2010 12:34PM

Flex wrote: »

The negotiating stances were worlds apart.

actually it was about to be agreed until Joe Duffy scared some backbenchers

The PS unions entered negotiations on the basis that they wouldnt accept paycuts, job losses or pension cuts and a demand that the government double the forecasted duration of time it was going to have to keep borrowing to 8 years (Jack O Connor amazingly somehow didnt think this would result in more debt). A promise regards implementing reform, that was supposed to start 10 years ago in exchange for benchmarking, and references to 'fat-cats' who could be taxed to bridge the deficit were what was on offer.

this paragraph shows how well scaremongering works in this Country...almost nothing of what you say is actually true

Nidot · 28-01-2010 12:51PM

Riskymove wrote: »

actually it was about to be agreed until Joe Duffy scared some backbenchers

this paragraph shows how well scaremongering works in this Country...almost nothing of what you say is actually true

I think you should take a better look at the response of the general population of this country to the proposed deal, i.e. 12 days unpaid leave. This deal was seen as being a bad move by the majority of hte countries as it would result in a net loss for the population of the country in that they would be losing out on the services offered, where the government were attempting to make savings in the public expenditure. How this agreement was nearly reached is beyond doubt due to the fact that the social partnership process was broke in that all parties are now too familiar with in government and no actual change was going to be achieved from further social partnership talks.

Also it has been pointed out by the CPSU that the proposed agreement would actually work out against their members as it would of resulted in an across the board pay cut and not a graded paycut depending on the level of pay at which each public servant was at.

Overall the proposed agreement was both flawed in how it was to be implemented and poor in that it would not of resulted in the necessary savings required.

And thats not even mentioning the fact that the cost savings which were proposed could not be guaranteed with differences of €500m between estimates

dvpower · 28-01-2010 01:50PM

Riskymove wrote: »

actually it was about to be agreed until Joe Duffy scared some backbenchers

Is there no limit to that man's powers?:rolleyes:

ardmacha · 28-01-2010 04:47PM

This deal was seen as being a bad move by the majority of hte countries as it would result in a net loss for the population of the country in that they would be losing out on the services offered, where the government were attempting to make savings in the public expenditure.

i.e. people want the same level of service without having to pay for it.

Nidot · 28-01-2010 04:53PM

ardmacha wrote: »

i.e. people want the same level of service without having to pay for it.

No people want the same level of service and to pay slightly less for it, i.e. with the average pay cut being 7.5% this would be the equivilant of a 7.5% decrease in price.

If you compare this to traded products/services this is roughly equivilant if even a slightly less of a decrease.

Nobodies asking anybody to work for free, but the pay decrease is asking people to work for slightly less then they were paid previously due to current fiscal difficulties.

Chatelaine · 28-01-2010 05:21PM

Nidot wrote: »

Nobodies asking anybody to work for free, but the pay decrease is asking people to work for slightly less then they were paid previously due to current fiscal difficulties.

I don't actually mind doing this, Nidot, and I'm sure lots of other people feel the same way. Personally, I'm in the fortunate position of not having any dependents other than myself, so I don't have to worry about feeding and clothing my children, or what-have-you.

But as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, it's the combination of cutting people's wages while at the same time bailing out (to the tune of billions) businesses which were, at the time, private enterprises, that I find galling. The division here isn't between the private and the public sectors, but between the folks at the top of the tree and the rest of us.

I appreciate the importance of ensuring the strength of our banks, particularly when the economy is in recession. However, it seems to me that the same banks that were coming cap-in-hand to the public purse for financial support have now reverted to business as usual - I wonder how long before the rest of us will be able to do that?

Nidot · 28-01-2010 05:29PM

I admire your Chatelaine that the you feel the reducing of costs is the correct action to take.

And yes I do agree with you about the actions which have been taken in relation to the banks.

We as a small trading economy need a viable banking system so as trade can be conducted within the economy. Post bailout of the banks (i.e. the government blanket guarantee and the capital injection) the banks have made no movement towards making their institutions more open and tranparent.

This openness and transparency shoudl of been a prerequisite of the capital injection. Also having the heads/boards of these bank accountable to the shareholder (i.e. the government/us) is an action which should of been implemented. Not having this accoutability in place makes future actions taken by the banks very suspect to claims of making their customers (i.e. us agin) suffer for their past incompetence.

Riskymove · 29-01-2010 11:42AM

Nidot wrote: »

I think you should take a better look at the response of the general population of this country to the proposed deal, i.e. 12 days unpaid leave. This deal was seen as being a bad move by the majority of hte countries as it would result in a net loss for the population of the country in that they would be losing out on the services offered, where the government were attempting to make savings in the public expenditure.

that position was mostly predicated on the idea that public services would "close" for 12 days in 2010, which was never the idea but was widely reported as such

How this agreement was nearly reached is beyond doubt due to the fact that the social partnership process was broke in that all parties are now too familiar with in government and no actual change was going to be achieved from further social partnership talks.

it would have resulted in an agreed position allowing significant savings in future years as the "transformation agenda" was implemented along with exisiting issues like the early retirement etc

2010 would have seen the unpaid leave allowance as a saving

we have lost the ease at which that agreed position would have seen real changes made

Also it has been pointed out by the CPSU that the proposed agreement would actually work out against their members as it would of resulted in an across the board pay cut and not a graded paycut depending on the level of pay at which each public servant was at.

Thats a seperate issue really, while the % may have been graded, those at lowest would have lost less in rela terms

as it turned out we all saw that those on the very top got away with it anyway to a great extent

Overall the proposed agreement was both flawed in how it was to be implemented and poor in that it would not of resulted in the necessary savings required.

And thats not even mentioning the fact that the cost savings which were proposed could not be guaranteed with differences of €500m between estimates

I have no issue with those arguments which could have been discussed and modified and I prefer that kind of thing to the stuff you posted earlier

Fanny Cradock · 03-03-2010 01:38PM

I heard the dole offices were closed later today. Is this true?

gandalf · 03-03-2010 01:44PM

Yep along with the passport offices, its been discussed in the other thread.

See this article from the Times

ei.sdraob · 03-03-2010 01:49PM

deadtiger wrote: »

Yep along with the passport offices

great (im waiting on mine) :rolleyes:

cant even leave the country now so :mad:

gandalf · 03-03-2010 01:55PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

great (im waiting on mine) :rolleyes:

cant even leave the country now so :mad:

Oh apparently according to our PS commentators it will mean they will get stuff done quicker because they don't have to deal with the pesky public anymore!

Not exactly what I would call a Public Service then eh

Padraig Mor · 03-03-2010 02:27PM

deadtiger wrote: »

Oh apparently according to our PS commentators it will mean they will get stuff done quicker because they don't have to deal with the pesky public anymore!

Not exactly what I would call a Public Service then eh

Don't forget these actions target the politicians, not the general public!

Yeah right, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Yours,
Disgusted member of the public service.

changes · 03-03-2010 02:56PM

deadtiger wrote: »

Oh apparently according to our PS commentators it will mean they will get stuff done quicker because they don't have to deal with the pesky public anymore!

Not exactly what I would call a Public Service then eh

It wouldn't be like you to paint it in as bad a light as possible, stirring the big brown pot.

I was refering to the idea that its a go slow, its not a go slow and they will not be lying at a 45 degree angle drinking tea. While the phones are down they will get to work clearing the backlog.

And yeah, some members of the public are far too quick to pick up the phone again and again and again... no doubt in the belief that if they keep ringing then they will be brought to the top of the queue. All they suceed in doing is slowing the staff down.

Everyone is entitled to ring and make an enquiry on the status of their application within reason.

gandalf · 03-03-2010 03:10PM

changes wrote: »

I was refering to the idea that its a go slow, its not a go slow and they will not be lying at a 45 degree angle drinking tea. While the phones are down they will get to work clearing the backlog.

And yeah, some members of the public are far too quick to pick up the phone again and again and again... no doubt in the belief that if they keep ringing then they will be brought to the top of the queue. All they suceed in doing is slowing the staff down.

Everyone is entitled to ring and make an enquiry on the status of their application within reason.

So how many calls are they allowed make? Maybe that's defined in those airtight contracts that the people on the "whatever we call not doing our job properly protest today" eh.

Again its pathetic that contact with the public is being shunned at the offices where the most vulnerable are turning at their most desperate hour.

changes · 03-03-2010 03:22PM

deadtiger wrote: »

So how many calls are they allowed make? Maybe that's defined in those airtight contracts that the people on the "whatever we call not doing our job properly protest today" eh.

Again its pathetic that contact with the public is being shunned at the offices where the most vulnerable are turning at their most desperate hour.

Deadtiger,

Id you have 5 staff in an office processing claims, each member will have a stack of claims on their desk, its the same for other offices in the PS that deal with claims and applications for services.

If people are ringing every 15 mins, its clearly going to slow them down significantly.

All i'd say is don't had in a claim on monday and start ringing the office looking for it to be done on tuesday, use common sense.

gandalf · 03-03-2010 03:28PM

Is omitting answering the phone and refusing to interact with the public an action by the unions to "stick it to the government" or not then?

I'm confused now, either this is an action by the PS unionised staff to start putting the boot into the government (and taxpayers) or its not?

changes · 03-03-2010 03:36PM

deadtiger wrote: »

Is omitting answering the phone and refusing to interact with the public an action by the unions to "stick it to the government" or not then?

I'm confused now, either this is an action by the PS unionised staff to start putting the boot into the government (and taxpayers) or its not?

Its industrial action, its going to be an inconvience, but not answering phones for half a day is not excessively damaging to anyone imo.
Its sending a message to the government.

ei.sdraob · 03-03-2010 03:41PM

changes wrote: »

Its industrial action, its going to be an inconvience, but not answering phones for half a day is not excessively damaging to anyone imo.
Its sending a message to the government.

its sending a message to the people

a loud and clear one

ixoy · 03-03-2010 03:43PM

changes wrote: »

Its industrial action, its going to be an inconvience, but not answering phones for half a day is not excessively damaging to anyone imo.

If I didn't answer my phone, I'd be called up to my boss because it's part of my duties. How can these actions not be considered against their duties? What sort of half-baked terms of employment have been written up?

Its sending a message to the government.

Also to the public that, despite claiming they're against the government, they're also not for the people by screwing over the many who need help right now in areas like social welfare.

I've also heard the term "go slow" used within the civil service. The people there are not doing any extra work while not answering their phones - they're being less productive. Less productive is surely going slower, no matter what union rhetoric you try to spin on it.

gandalf · 03-03-2010 03:44PM

changes wrote: »

Its industrial action, its going to be an inconvience, but not answering phones for half a day is not excessively damaging to anyone imo.
Its sending a message to the government.

The second half day in less than a week? The politicians don't care they have to press on with making savings and there is no way they are going to reverse things, they can't.

The public however are getting the message loud and clear. When the country is in a bind the unions and their followers are out to dig us into a far deeper hole than we are already in.

Public Service work to rule today (question)

Comments