Is it time to tear up the Croke Park Agreement?

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 03:46PM #1

So 70% of the HSE's budget is spent on wages and this amount is protected by the Croke Park Agreement. Over 60% of all tax income is spent on Public Sector wages again protected by the Croke Park Agreement. Can we afford these numbers? NO! Is it time to tear up the Croke Park Agreement and get realistic about Public Service pay and conditions? In my opinion, Yes! Times have changed dramatically and continue to change so pay rates and terms and conditions for those paid form the public purse must also change. All public servants contracts need to be replaced with less onerous (on the state) contracts and wages across the board have to come down which will in turn drive down cost of living. The days of Civil Service jobs being "jobs for life" must end.

kippy · 20-10-2010 03:49PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So 70% of the HSE's budget is spent on wages and this amount is protected by the Croke Park Agreement. Over 60% of all tax income is spent on Public Sector wages again protected by the Croke Park Agreement. Can we afford these numbers? NO! Is it time to tear up the Croke Park Agreement and get realistic about Public Service pay and conditions? In my opinion, Yes! Times have changed dramatically and continue to change so pay rates and terms and conditions for those paid form the public purse must also change. All public servants contracts need to be replaced with less onerous (on the state) contracts and wages across the board have to come down which will in turn drive down cost of living. The days of Civil Service jobs being "jobs for life" must end.

Totally agree so long as it is coupled with reduced numbers of politicians at all levels, efforts to bring all earners into the tax net, efforts to reduce social benefits of all levels and a "stimulus" package to help increase employment.

La Haine · 20-10-2010 03:53PM

I concur.

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 03:57PM

kippy wrote: »

Totally agree so long as it is coupled with reduced numbers of politicians at all levels, efforts to bring all earners into the tax net, efforts to reduce social benefits of all levels and a "stimulus" package to help increase employment.

Well the number of TD's should be reduced regardless. The Seanad should be closed down for now. Maybe when we're rich again we could afford the debating club but not now. Or else leave it open but in a voluntary membership capacity ie no salary and no expenses. And as for a reduction of benefits: well, the first step should be to consolidate the number of available benefits into one or two and make them equal across the board. You're either entitled or you're not and if you are then every entitled person gets the same single payment and pay their own rent and fuel etc etc out of it. This would cut out vast forests of paperwork, assessment, appeals etc etc thus reducing costs and pressure on the payroll. TD salaries need to be slashed and expenses eradicated. Free travel cards could be issued to them and flights etc booked through a central office outsourced and answerable on costs to the C & AG office.

Pete M. · 20-10-2010 03:58PM

It'll tear itself up.

Bad deal from the start.

kippy · 20-10-2010 04:00PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Well the number of TD's should be reduced regardless. The Seanad should be closed down for now. Maybe when we're rich again we could afford the debating club but not now. Or else leave it open but in a voluntary membership capacity ie no salary and no expenses. And as for a reduction of benefits: well, the first step should be to consolidate the number of available benefits into one or two and make them equal across the board. You're either entitled or you're not and if you are then every entitled person gets the same single payment and pay their own rent and fuel etc etc out of it. This would cut out vast forests of paperwork, assessment, appeals etc etc thus reducing costs and pressure on the payroll. TD salaries need to be slashed and expenses eradicated. Free travel cards could be issued to them and flights etc booked through a central office outsourced and answerable on costs to the C & AG office.

You initially set out a number of very broad and sweeping statements in your initial post.
I did the same in my second post. I aint getting into details on exactly how my points should be achieved - that would take far to long.

ShamoBuc · 20-10-2010 04:05PM

Unless I'm mistaken the 2014 agreement has yet to be fully ratified and accepted by all the unions. For eg. the Into are still around the table with the gov with relation to the agreement - they have not implemented it yet as they agreed to the 'Draft' agreement. It was not a finished product - hence the negotiations.

btard · 20-10-2010 04:07PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So 70% of the HSE's budget is spent on wages and this amount is protected by the Croke Park Agreement. Over 60% of all tax income is spent on Public Sector wages again protected by the Croke Park Agreement. Can we afford these numbers? NO! Is it time to tear up the Croke Park Agreement and get realistic about Public Service pay and conditions? In my opinion, Yes! Times have changed dramatically and continue to change so pay rates and terms and conditions for those paid form the public purse must also change. All public servants contracts need to be replaced with less onerous (on the state) contracts and wages across the board have to come down which will in turn drive down cost of living. The days of Civil Service jobs being "jobs for life" must end.

If you tear it up where would you get the savings and improvements the agreement is set to deliver over the next 4 years. Also, how would you deal with the industrial war which would follow ?

enda1 · 20-10-2010 04:09PM

Of all the things previous posters have stated "protesting against", this is the only one so far I could agree with.

Funnily enough it would be a protest against the unions, SWP and éirígí who have been involved with all other protests.

This could be successful too as in the end the government want to do it too.
Just could be a really difficult and dangerous rally especially because of those who you are protesting against: the police, the doctors etc. (this is how they would present it anyway even though its not true really). And if the unions decided to hold a counter protest, things could get really hairy!

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 04:15PM

btard wrote: »

If you tear it up where would you get the savings and improvements the agreement is set to deliver over the next 4 years. Also, how would you deal with the industrial war which would follow?

The savings would be made now by cutting headcount dramatically, outsourcing much of the admin, and cutting expenditure associated with the current headcount. I can't see there being Industrial War in the aftermath because the Unions could not justofy it. They tried to do so with the Public Service actions at the end of last year and the start of this year but it backfired spectacularly. Why? Because they directed their action at the people who could do nothing to help them instead of at the Government who could. By so doing they wiped out any sympathy that the General Public had for them. The Public Service is now treated with disdain by the General Public and the usual bewilderment by the Government and all caused by the Unions.

dan_d · 20-10-2010 04:17PM

Yes.

It's been given time. It has not achieved the cuts we need to make.

Back to the drawing board - this time with less negotiation. There's just no more room for the type of negotiation unions do. We're only harming ourselves by continuing like this.

ShamoBuc · 20-10-2010 04:22PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The savings would be made now by cutting headcount dramatically, outsourcing much of the admin, and cutting expenditure associated with the current headcount. I can't see there being Industrial War in the aftermath because the Unions could not justofy it. They tried to do so with the Public Service actions at the end of last year and the start of this year but it backfired spectacularly. Why? Because they directed their action at the people who could do nothing to help them instead of at the Government who could. By so doing they wiped out any sympathy that the General Public had for them. The Public Service is now treated with disdain by the General Public and the usual bewilderment by the Government and all caused by the Unions.

Unless I'm very much mistaken people still have alot of sympathy for eg. nurses and junior doctors in particular. Also I never realised the public service needed sympathy from the general public for anything! And don't forget the 'general public' is also made up of a couple of hundred thousand public sector workers.

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 04:26PM

enda1 wrote: »

Just could be a really difficult and dangerous really especially because of those who you are protesting against: the police, the doctors etc. (this is how they would present it anyway even though its not true really). And if the unions decided to hold a counter protest, things could get really hairy!

You need never worry about The Gardai or the Medical staff striking. While they may withdraw certain services, they are by far the most consciencous Public Services and will never down tools full stop. The Nurses and Doctors would continue to provide essential services in the Hospitals and the Gardai would continue to maintain order in the country. In the case of the Gardai, they would just stop doing non essential operations such as chasing parking tickets and the like. We are lucky in that we have an excellent Garda force and an excellent front line Medical staff. I have never met or heard of a Nurse or Doctor who would not treat a person that needed essential care immediately and I've never heard of a Garda who would not protect the safety of the public whether on or off duty. They are far too professional. They should be promised an improvement in their salaries when circumstances allow such. They must accept that the cash just isn't there now so they will have to bite the bullet just like everyone else. All Public Services need to get real and realise, painful as it is, tha we just do not have the money to carry on at the rate we are at. EVERYBODY needs to see the example coming from the top ie The Government and filter it all the way down the line. Not the other way round!

johngalway · 20-10-2010 04:26PM

Is it time?

It should never have been written.

Govt cave in at a time they had a lot of the people behind them on those particular "adjustments".

ShamoBuc · 20-10-2010 04:40PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

You need never worry about The Gardai or the Medical staff striking. While they may withdraw certain services, they are by far the most consciencous Public Services and will never down tools full stop. The Nurses and Doctors would continue to provide essential services in the Hospitals and the Gardai would continue to maintain order in the country. In the case of the Gardai, they would just stop doing non essential operations such as chasing parking tickets and the like. We are lucky in that we have an excellent Garda force and an excellent front line Medical staff. I have never met or heard of a Nurse or Doctor who would not treat a person that needed essential care immediately and I've never heard of a Garda who would not protect the safety of the public whether on or off duty. They are far too professional. They should be promised an improvement in their salaries when circumstances allow such. They must accept that the cash just isn't there now so they will have to bite the bullet just like everyone else. All Public Services need to get real and realise, painful as it is, tha we just do not have the money to carry on at the rate we are at. EVERYBODY needs to see the example coming from the top ie The Government and filter it all the way down the line. Not the other way round!

the problem is when the tiger was roaring the nurses had to strike to try and get their much deserved increases in pay. All of the increases they fought so hard to get were as good as wiped out in last years cuts ( 20% approx.) They know the tax increases are coming i.e. a further drop in their net pay - you can't keep hitting the take home pay and still expect such quality service - as you corectly pointed out they deliver - or can you? Also some of the 'wastage' the gov are still fittering away is in the millions..... and yet THEY want more from us, a bit Irish really.

btard · 20-10-2010 04:43PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The savings would be made now by cutting headcount dramatically, outsourcing much of the admin, and cutting expenditure associated with the current headcount. I can't see there being Industrial War in the aftermath because the Unions could not justofy it. They tried to do so with the Public Service actions at the end of last year and the start of this year but it backfired spectacularly. Why? Because they directed their action at the people who could do nothing to help them instead of at the Government who could. By so doing they wiped out any sympathy that the General Public had for them. The Public Service is now treated with disdain by the General Public and the usual bewilderment by the Government and all caused by the Unions.

The headcount is being cut dramitically and will be more so when the voluntary redundency schemes come in. A lot of the savings you want will be delivered if the agreement is given a chance to work. Scrapping it will just cause chaos. It's not what anyone needs now.

senordingdong · 20-10-2010 04:44PM

Aren't ther already plans to dismantle it in March.

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 04:55PM

ShamoBuc wrote: »

the problem is when the tiger was roaring the nurses had to strike to try and get their much deserved increases in pay. All of the increases they fought so hard to get were as good as wiped out in last years cuts ( 20% approx.) They know the tax increases are coming i.e. a further drop in their net pay - you can't keep hitting the take home pay and still expect such quality service - as you corectly pointed out they deliver - or can you? Also some of the 'wastage' the gov are still fittering away is in the millions..... and yet THEY want more from us, a bit Irish really.

I absolutely agree with you regarding the Nurses and I said so in my previous post. Unfortunately there is no choice. Hence my assertion that these cuts must start at the top and work down rather than from the bottom up as always happens. The problem with the two sectors I choose - Medical and the Guards (and I should have included all Emergency Services) - is that 99% of the people who enter these professions do so firstly because of the desire to help others - nobody joined because of the pay rates because they were never spectacular - and because of this they will always be treated with derision by the Government.

btard wrote: »

The headcount is being cut dramitically and will be more so when the voluntary redundency schemes come in.

Yes. But in traditional Civil Service style - Snails pace!

btard wrote: »

A lot of the savings you want will be delivered if the agreement is given a chance to work. Scrapping it will just cause chaos. It's not what anyone needs now.

Unfortunately we do not have the time to wait for these changes to work. We ran out of time. Sorry but that's the cold reality. It won't cause chaos by scrapping it because I know, You know , The Unions know and the dog in the street knows that there is no other way.

cyclopath2001 · 20-10-2010 05:08PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Sorry but that's the cold reality..

Would you say that to Anglo's and Irish Nationwide bondholders? Tell them to take a loss on their investments?

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 05:18PM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Would you say that to Anglo's and Irish Nationwide bondholders? Tell them to take a loss on their investments?

Of course I would. If you or I gambled invested in shares or bonds and they bombed it would be tough sh1t. They know the game far better than we do.

btard · 20-10-2010 05:36PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Unfortunately we do not have the time to wait for these changes to work. We ran out of time. Sorry but that's the cold reality. It won't cause chaos by scrapping it because I know, You know , The Unions know and the dog in the street knows that there is no other way.

You won't get the changes you want any faster. Trying to do it your way will just throw a spanner in the works. The government has a 4 year budget plan which incorporates the CP agreement. We will know soon enough if it's not going to work. Personally I think they played a blinder dealing with this problem. They forced the PS to take an average 14% paycut, a 4 year pay freeze and agree to sweeping changes in work practices. Short of turning it in to a minimum wage job there's not much else they could do.

cyclopath2001 · 20-10-2010 05:38PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Of course I would. If you or I gambled invested in shares or bonds and they bombed it would be tough sh1t. They know the game far better than we do.

But if the government defaults on an agreement, that would be bad for the country's reputation, right?

ShamoBuc · 20-10-2010 05:39PM

btard wrote: »

You won't get the changes you want any faster. Trying to do it your way will just throw a spanner in the works. The government has a 4 year budget plan which incorporates the CP agreement. We will know soon enough if it's not going to work. Personally I think they played a blinder dealing with this problem. They forced the PS to take an average 14% paycut, a 4 year pay freeze and agree to sweeping changes in work practices. Short of turning it in to a minimum wage job there's not much else they could do.

increase the amount of tax they pay.... oh... wait a minute...

NotInventedHere · 20-10-2010 05:48PM

senordingdong wrote: »

Aren't ther already plans to dismantle it in March.

source ?????

murphaph · 20-10-2010 06:03PM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Would you say that to Anglo's and Irish Nationwide bondholders? Tell them to take a loss on their investments?

I guess it depends on whether or not it's the same bond holders we are now desperately trying to borrow money off to keep the show "on the road"!

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 06:09PM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But if the government defaults on an agreement, that would be bad for the country's reputation, right?

And if they hadn't agreed to prop it up at the start without doing a proper audit they/we wouldn't have been borrowing from said bondholders. We should just borrow the lot from the ECB at 3% and repay these expensive bond holders now.

oscarBravo · 20-10-2010 06:20PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And if they hadn't agreed to prop it up at the start without doing a proper audit they/we wouldn't have been borrowing from said bondholders.

We're not borrowing to bail out Anglo, we're borrowing to pay public service wages and social welfare - and we're going to be borrowing for those for quite some time.

cyclopath2001 · 20-10-2010 07:11PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're not borrowing to bail out Anglo, we're borrowing to pay public service wages and social welfare - and we're going to be borrowing for those for quite some time.

We're not borrowing to bail out Anglo? Where's that money coming from?

oscarBravo · 20-10-2010 07:13PM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We're not borrowing to bail out Anglo? Where's that money coming from?

Allow me to rephrase: we're not just borrowing to bail out Anglo. There seems to be a meme out there that suggests that if we hadn't bailed out Anglo, we could keep spending beyond our means without having to borrow 20 billion a year.

Anglo is not our biggest problem.

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 07:41PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Allow me to rephrase: we're not just borrowing to bail out Anglo. There seems to be a meme out there that suggests that if we hadn't bailed out Anglo, we could keep spending beyond our means without having to borrow 20 billion a year.

Anglo is not our biggest problem.

No. But it is a substantial part of it and it makes no sense to pay 7% when we can pay 3% does it? And when we overcome that problem - which shouldn't take long given that we're dealing with the ECB - then we need to radically deal with the Public Spending. We should deal with the easy bit first.

kippy · 20-10-2010 07:41PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Allow me to rephrase: we're not just borrowing to bail out Anglo. There seems to be a meme out there that suggests that if we hadn't bailed out Anglo, we could keep spending beyond our means without having to borrow 20 billion a year.

Anglo is not our biggest problem.

Anglo and the toxicity associated with it, as well as the taxpayers exposure to it (up to an including a total cost of approximately 35 billion) together with the costs associated with the other bank bailouts are primarily the reason it is costing us over 6% to borrow money.........which is ultimately the problem that is facing us now.
Of course we need to reduce or fiscal deficit and of course areas of society including the public service need to take cuts, however the massive pressure on us to reduce this deficit in the very short term is purely down the the interest rates we are paying to borrow money which in my opinion and that of many others is caused by the issues in our first paragraph.

I totally agree, the 20 billion or whatever it is today absolutely has to be reduced but what is going to happen is a complete stagnation in our economy because of the burden placed upon us by the costs of bailing out banks, whether it is the direct costs of this or the indirect ones.

Is it time to tear up the Croke Park Agreement?

Comments