Should we scrap the Croke Park agreement?

Einhard · 08-09-2012 02:39AM

galwayrush wrote: »

A lot of public sector workers won't know what's hit them when it happens, the reality that most private sector workers are already in is a nasty place.

Sorry, that's not true. All PS workers have taken some form of pay cut over the past few years. Only a minority of private sector workers have been laid of or taken a reduction in pay. I realise that private sector workers have been hit hard, but I think that we should stick to the facts and not pretend that most of one sector is struggling, while the other is living high on the hog.

Biggins · 08-09-2012 02:39AM

mishkalucy wrote: »

Wouldn't bet the farm on that one Biggs

You would lose that bet.

Smidge · 08-09-2012 02:42AM

Einhard wrote: »

I'm a PS worker. Actually, I would be were it not for the fact that I have to leave the country next month because I can't get a job here. Fair enough. It'll be an adventure. I think Croke Park should be re-opened. This country simply can't afford to pay what it pays at the moment. It's incredible that unions are up in arms about even looking at increments. There was an excellent article in the Irish Times recently which accused unions of not giving a hoot about social solidarity, and I think it was spot on. The Unions want to keep what they have secured, and if disabled kids lose out on home help, well so be it.

I do think though, that there needs to be a wider awareness of how much has changed in the Public Service over the past few years. There needs to be more reflection and mature debate on both sides, and this isn't often reflected in the PS bashing that is so common around here. I'm a teacher, and can vouch for the fact that there have been huge reforms over the past five years, yet all the talk about that sector is based on conceptions that are well older. I wouldn't mind except that when corrected, the people who spout the BS don't take it on board.

All in all, I think Croke Park should be re-opened. However, I think it should be looked at in a sensible way by all sides, and without the kind of white heat generated by an often uninformed public discourse.

I never thought I would agree with a PS worker but i have to be fair, a lot of newly qualified teachers have found themselves unhitched.
I think the problem with the PS is that the "Old Guard" have reaped substantial rewards and are most certainly not willing to give them up at the cost of the incoming youth or society in general.

Galwayguy35 · 08-09-2012 07:12AM

Einhard wrote: »

Sorry, that's not true. All PS workers have taken some form of pay cut over the past few years. Only a minority of private sector workers have been laid of or taken a reduction in pay. I realise that private sector workers have been hit hard, but I think that we should stick to the facts and not pretend that most of one sector is struggling, while the other is living high on the hog.

Only a minority of private sector workers have been laid off?

Have you any family members who are/were builders?
That area is decimated since the recession kicked in.

Many private sector workers have taken a pay cut just so they can stay working, just because it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

You say you want mature debate on this, well so do I but both sides need to stop coming on and saying things that are not 100% accurate.

JustAThought · 08-09-2012 07:20AM

Suspect that the vote stats give a fair reflection ; whose going to argue online with the institutie-think we get bombarded with from Pravda-Rte every opportunity. And I mean Soviet Pravda. Just in case there's any ambiguity.

daisybelle2008 · 08-09-2012 08:53AM

Einhard wrote: »

Sorry, that's not true. All PS workers have taken some form of pay cut over the past few years. Only a minority of private sector workers have been laid of or taken a reduction in pay. I realise that private sector workers have been hit hard, but I think that we should stick to the facts and not pretend that most of one sector is struggling, while the other is living high on the hog.

I work in the private sector and here is how it works. If my company is in profit, jobs are safe. If my company starts losing money, straight away pay is frozen, contractors laid off and costs cut. If the company continues to lose money, head count is cut and potentially company closes and everyone is unemployed.
Now unlike the public sector nothing like 70/80% of company spend is on wages, that would not be entertained. Bonuses, jobs, hours and benefits are severely cut when times are hard. This is widely acceptable in the private sector. Pensions and health insurance are not guaranteed. I cannot retire with a fat lump sum and 2/3rds of my final wage and still get incremental increases at any age from as early as 40/65 ( army, prison guards etc.). It is expected that I work up to 60 hours a week and from home on my laptop. I am paying into a private pension that may be worthless in 30 years time.

However when the public sector employer is as broke as this government is and are paying nearly 80% of revenue on wages, for some reason loss off increments, a day off for 'the king', unvouched mileage and expenses and serious cuts seem to be unacceptable. Public sector workers seem to have some inexplicable logic for sidestepping the obvious fact your employer completely broke and does not have this luxury anymore.
I would not like to see job losses in the public sector, but it is clear to avoid this that the benefits, increments and lump sum retirement pay outs have to be cut out. To be clear when and if the government is in the black, by all means reinstate these benefits. Can a public sector worker tell me where the gov is supposed to get the money. Please don't mention 'the banks', as they are being lent that money and have to pay back with interest so it is not the same thing.

Monty Burnz · 08-09-2012 09:25AM

kub wrote: »

Our tax income is at 2003 levels, the private sector have been hammered. 70% of the HSE budget goes on salaries, etc.

Am I correct in thinking that when this agreement was hammered out that one of the conditions of it was that if economic conditions continued to decrease that the agreement could be re examined?

If so, why has this not happened?

Labour are in government. Labour is essentially the party of the public sector, and they are (quite rightly, I suppose) fighting for their constituency.

Colmustard · 08-09-2012 09:56AM

I am surprised it has lasted this long. I thought by now the IMF/ECB would have cancelled the agreement and reversed the bertie benchmarking agreement.

That tells you how well this government is doing its job, there is hope for us and there is still a chance we will not need a second bail out, it turns out we avoided the Greek situation, somehow.

I think the up coming budget will do something else against the PS, but not reverse the croke park agreement.

Einhard · 08-09-2012 09:56AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Only a minority of private sector workers have been laid off?

Have you any family members who are/were builders?
That area is decimated since the recession kicked in.

Many private sector workers have taken a pay cut just so they can stay working, just because it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

You say you want mature debate on this, well so do I but both sides need to stop coming on and saying things that are not 100% accurate.

I'm sorry, but you agree that we need mature debate and accurate comments, but then still insist that a majority (ie over 50%) of private sector workers have been laid off since this recesson hit. And that is simply untrue. You also state that a majority of private sector workers have taken a pay reduction. This is often stated as a fact, yet I have not seen any data to back it up, and have read and heard of reports over the past years that would indicate that it is not exactly the case. Apologies for not having said reports to hand right now, but even were I never to find them, it does not change the fact that you are claiming something for which you have no proof.

Have many private sector workers taken wages cuts? Of course. Have the majority? That's a different thing entirely. Have all public sector workers taken cuts? Yes.

This is what I mean by a proper debate. I don't deny that more cuts are necessary, but I think we should be more restrained in the alleged "facts" and soundbites that both sides throw around.

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I work in the private sector and here is how it works. If my company is in profit, jobs are safe. If my company starts losing money, straight away pay is frozen, contractors laid off and costs cut. If the company continues to lose money, head count is cut and potentially company closes and everyone is unemployed.
Now unlike the public sector nothing like 70/80% of company spend is on wages, that would not be entertained. Bonuses, jobs, hours and benefits are severely cut when times are hard. This is widely acceptable in the private sector. Pensions and health insurance are not guaranteed. I cannot retire with a fat lump sum and 2/3rds of my final wage and still get incremental increases at any age from as early as 40/65 ( army, prison guards etc.). It is expected that I work up to 60 hours a week and from home on my laptop. I am paying into a private pension that may be worthless in 30 years time.

However when the public sector employer is as broke as this government is and are paying nearly 80% of revenue on wages, for some reason loss off increments, a day off for 'the king', unvouched mileage and expenses and serious cuts seem to be unacceptable. Public sector workers seem to have some inexplicable logic for sidestepping the obvious fact your employer completely broke and does not have this luxury anymore.
I would not like to see job losses in the public sector, but it is clear to avoid this that the benefits, increments and lump sum retirement pay outs have to be cut out. To be clear when and if the government is in the black, by all means reinstate these benefits. Can a public sector worker tell me where the gov is supposed to get the money. Please don't mention 'the banks', as they are being lent that money and have to pay back with interest so it is not the same thing.

I don't disagree with anythign there. As I said, the Croke Park agreement should be re-opened. What I did point out, was that public sector workers have been hit by reductions in take home pay, and new entrants in particular have been hit particularly hard. That's not to play the poor mouth by any means, but to point out some truths that are sometimes conveniently ignored.

Monty Burnz · 08-09-2012 09:59AM

Einhard wrote: »

Have many private sector workers taken wages cuts? Of course. Have the majority? That's a different thing entirely. Have all public sector workers taken cuts? Yes.

Einhard, can you please - for the purposes of clarity - outline the cuts that all public sector workers have taken?

Einhard · 08-09-2012 10:36AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Einhard, can you please - for the purposes of clarity - outline the cuts that all public sector workers have taken?

Well the December 2009 Budget cut PS pay as follows:

The first 30k saw a reduction of 5%

From 30-70k was cut by 7.5%

From 70k-125k saw a 10% reducation.

So, for example, someone earning €25000 in October 2009 would have earned €1250 less a few months later. I think we an all agree that €1250 is a not insubstantial reduction.

Furthermore, a pension levy was introduced. According to the ASTI, that operates at 3% on the first €15k and 10% thereafter.

Now, can we be honest here and admit to the basic reality that a pension levy of 5% where there had not been a levy previously is essentially a 5% cut in take home pay? I mean, that's what it is.

So immediately one can see that someone on €25k a year has, since 2009, taken a 5% direct pay cut, and a further reducation in pay of between 3 and 10% as a result of the pension levy.

Furthermore, new entrants have been hit even more. I know that, were I to get a full-time position in the morning, I'd earn one third less than a colleague who started two years ago. That's a pretty substantial difference.

There are of course the reductions brought about by the changing of overtime rules and the reform of rostering, particularly in the HSE. That also has had an impact on pay.

Now, before some people get all angsty about a post they probably haven't read, I'm merely providing some facts as I see them. This isn't a defence of the Croke Park agreement, but it is intended to provide some evidential basis for a debate.

Monty Burnz · 08-09-2012 10:42AM

Einhard wrote: »

Well the December 2009 Budget cut PS pay as follows:

The first 30k saw a reduction of 5%

From 30-70k was cut by 7.5%

From 70k-125k saw a 10% reducation.

So, for example, someone earning €25000 in October 2009 would have earned €1250 less a few months later. I think we an all agree that €1250 is a not insubstantial reduction.

Ok, thanks for the numbers.

Einhard wrote: »

Furthermore, a pension levy was introduced. According to the ASTI, that operates at 3% on the first €15k and 10% thereafter.

Now, can we be honest here and admit to the basic reality that a pension levy of 5% where there had not been a levy previously is essentially a 5% cut in take home pay? I mean, that's what it is.

Well I'd agree that that represents a 5% cut in pay if you would agree that the value of a defined benefit pension scheme can and should be calculated in terms of its net present value and added onto the basic salary when considering how well PS workers are paid.

Einhard · 08-09-2012 11:03AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well I'd agree that that represents a 5% cut in pay if you would agree that the value of a defined benefit pension scheme can and should be calculated in terms of its net present value and added onto the basic salary when considering how well PS workers are paid.

Hmm, that's a good one. It makes sense on one level, but how could one calculate the value of private sector pensions which are at the mercy of market forces? They can fall of course, but generally they rise over the long term, and I think it would be unfair were public sector pensions included in net pay while private sector were excluded on the basis merely that, at the moment, they are faring poorly on the markets.

ncdadam · 08-09-2012 11:54AM

kippy wrote: »

Yeah, a boards poll. A true reflection of public sentiment and a real driving force for policy change in Ireland.

You wouldn't be saying that if it was 126 odd voting no!

ncdadam · 08-09-2012 12:00PM

Einhard wrote: »

Sorry, that's not true. All PS workers have taken some form of pay cut over the past few years. Only a minority of private sector workers have been laid of or taken a reduction in pay. I realise that private sector workers have been hit hard, but I think that we should stick to the facts and not pretend that most of one sector is struggling, while the other is living high on the hog.

Don't forget the fact that PS workers votes were bought by the FF administration for years.
Benchmarking was a travesty and the sooner someone has the balls to beat the PS unions back into place, the better.
Looks like it'll have to be Mr.Chopra or one of his boys though as the clowns in government aren't willing or able to do it.

BornToKill · 08-09-2012 12:11PM

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Please don't mention 'the banks', as they are being lent that money and have to pay back with interest so it is not the same thing.

There's no chance at all that we will ever again see the billions put into Anglo, INBS, AIB and EBS. Neither is there any agreement for them to pay back, either with or without interest, the capital pumped into them. That's about €48 billion to date.

tanko · 08-09-2012 12:29PM

Public sector workers are always very quick to point out that their pay has been cut since 2008. They never mention the massive pay rises they received from 2000 to 2007. In real terms they are still far better off than they were in 2000.

Isn't it strange that they dont want their pay benchmarked against pay in the private sector now?

The croke park agreement should be ripped up. The country cant afford it.

kippy · 08-09-2012 01:08PM

tanko wrote: »

Public sector workers are always very quick to point out that their pay has been cut since 2008. They never mention the massive pay rises they received from 2000 to 2007. In real terms they are still far better off than they were in 2000.

Isn't it strange that they dont want their pay benchmarked against pay in the private sector now?

The croke park agreement should be ripped up. The country cant afford it.

There are a lot of people better off now than they were in 2000. In the intervening period, the minimum wage, OAP, Social Welfare payments and pay in general has risen significantly in that period.
So too have costs, one probably drives the other.
Insurances of all types (in general) have gone up. Raw material for fuel, which has pushed up everything including commuting, goods and services, electricity and heating etc,
A lot of unavoidable costs have gone up significently in the mean time.

Chorcai · 08-09-2012 01:22PM

Poll should be how many have actually read the Croke Park Agreement !

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Public-Service-Agreement-2010-2014-Final-for-print-June-2010.pdf

Einhard · 08-09-2012 01:28PM

ncdadam wrote: »

Don't forget the fact that PS workers votes were bought by the FF administration for years.
Benchmarking was a travesty and the sooner someone has the balls to beat the PS unions back into place, the better.
Looks like it'll have to be Mr.Chopra or one of his boys though as the clowns in government aren't willing or able to do it.

Don't forget that all workers were bought off by the FF administration for years. Benchmarking was a farce, I agree. But wages in private industry also rose dramatically during that period, and much of that was as unsustainable as was the benchmarking increases.

tanko wrote: »

Public sector workers are always very quick to point out that their pay has been cut since 2008. They never mention the massive pay rises they received from 2000 to 2007. In real terms they are still far better off than they were in 2000.

The private sector also received massive pay increases as part of the very same social partnership process which brought benchmarking about.

Isn't it strange that they dont want their pay benchmarked against pay in the
private sector now?

If public sector pay was tp be benchmarked against private sector pay, then only a minority of those in the public sector would have received pay cuts. Every single public sector worker has suffered significant cuts in pay; that cannot be said for those in the private sector. So I'm not sure that your claim stands up.

mikemac1 · 08-09-2012 01:31PM

Einhard wrote: »

Every single public sector worker has suffered significant cuts in pay; that cannot be said for those in the private sector. So I'm not sure that your claim stands up.

Hundreds of thousands got a 100% pay cut

kippy · 08-09-2012 01:37PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands got a 100% pay cut

Benchmarking never benchmarked against those on social welfare, only those in employment in similar role. So that wouldn't really make any difference to the process.

Those 350000 people went from a wage of X to a social welfare payment, usually though no fault of their own, and obviously find themselves in tough times.
Those that have remained in employment - the vast majority of those employed in the private sector have had mixed fortunes since 2008. I dont have any solid evidence to state that many have received pay rises or not however.

Wanderer2010 · 08-09-2012 01:56PM

Public sector workers have of course had pay cuts and increased hours etc but what a lot of them fail to realise is just how secure their jobs are. Permanent and pensionable public servants cant be sacked and will always have a job, even a reduced pay one. Im in the private sector and if i screw up, miss too many days or go off sick, then im out the door with my P45 and rightly so. In the public sector, there is meeting after meeting and letters passed until they are either given a warning or transferred- never fired!

It has been said many times but Public sector workers really should be grateful for what they have- between the security of a regular wage, pension, retirement fund etc they can never compare themselves to the hard up 400,000+ on the dole. I never really understood why you cant be sacked as a civil servant- i mean, you screw up, are a bad worker, go, end of story!

As for the Agreement, yes it should be edited. We simply cant afford to be paying the big cheeses at the top of the civil service massive wages and bonuses when the disabled people of this country have to spend a night outside Government buildings for change..:rolleyes:

kippy · 08-09-2012 02:04PM

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Public sector workers have of course had pay cuts and increased hours etc but what a lot of them fail to realise is just how secure their jobs are. Permanent and pensionable public servants cant be sacked and will always have a job, even a reduced pay one. Im in the private sector and if i screw up, miss too many days or go off sick, then im out the door with my P45 and rightly so. In the public sector, there is meeting after meeting and letters passed until they are either given a warning or transferred- never fired!

It has been said many times but Public sector workers really should be grateful for what they have- between the security of a regular wage, pension, retirement fund etc they can never compare themselves to the hard up 400,000+ on the dole. I never really understood why you cant be sacked as a civil servant- i mean, you screw up, are a bad worker, go, end of story!

As for the Agreement, yes it should be edited. We simply cant afford to be paying the big cheeses at the top of the civil service massive wages and bonuses when the disabled people of this country have to spend a night outside Government buildings for change..:rolleyes:

Those "jobs for life" are about 24 months at most from being not jobs for life.
Terms and conditions of employment in the public service are being eroded annually.

Do you not think that people are happy to be working at the moment?

It's not a bad thing that the jobs for life thing will go to be honest. But there are far more things that need to be looked at initially to ensure the service improves.

There won't be 400000 on the dole for ever either.

woodoo · 08-09-2012 03:26PM

generalmental wrote: »

Too right it should be scrapped they are going to cut my dole now.
Don't see why I should take a cut to keep them in a job.

Travesty that's what it is

You wouldn't be taking a cut to keep them in a job you would be taking a cut because Social Welfare is the biggest spending department in the country. Spending 21billion a year.

Japer · 08-09-2012 04:51PM

Einhard wrote: »

I'm a teacher, and can vouch for the fact that there have been huge reforms over the past five years

In the overall scheme of things the "reforms" have been tiny. There was an Irish born + bred teacher on the radio recently who is now teaching in England, and he compared the teachers lot in the UK with here. In the UK, teachers hare paid considerably less, work longer hours, do lots of parent/teacher meetings in the evenings, have much less holidays , have less of a pension etc.

Public sector pay is still double what it was 10 years ago. Slash it 50%, now that would be a "huge reform".

Monty Burnz · 08-09-2012 04:58PM

Japer wrote: »

In the overall scheme of things the "reforms" have been tiny. There was an Irish born + bred teacher on the radio recently who is now teaching in England, and he compared the teachers lot in the UK with here. In the UK, teachers hare paid considerably less, work longer hours, do lots of parent/teacher meetings in the evenings, have much less holidays , have less of a pension etc.

I'd make a distinction between teachers and civil service pen-pushers. In Britain, as you rightly suggest, conditions for teachers are much worse. What impact do you think this has on the standard of teacher there? Would you rather teaching was a desirable profession, or one that only the desperate get into?

Japer · 08-09-2012 05:04PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

In Britain, as you rightly suggest, conditions for teachers are much worse.

Not just for teachers - but pay and pension for the public service is worse in the UK than it is here. Average public sector salary in the UK is £21.5k a year - and there is controversy there about how high that is. And they have to pay household tax, water charges, higher fuel costs etc in the UK.

If I was a public servant or p.s. taxpayer in Germany, Denmark, Holland , UK etc I'd be mighty pissed off my taxes were were being lent to the Irish government to pay the public sector in Ireland so much more than they themselves get.

Japer · 08-09-2012 05:09PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would you rather teaching was a desirable profession, or one that only the desperate get into?

I have met teachers from UK and they are far from desperate.

Only someone here on double their equivalents pay abroad could have the arrogance to call the public servants of a G7 nation - and one of the ones who are bailing us out, with the IMF - desperate.;)

Monty Burnz · 08-09-2012 05:19PM

Japer wrote: »

I have met teachers from UK and they are far from desperate.

Only someone here on double their equivalents pay abroad could have the arrogance to call the public servants of a G7 nation - and one of the ones who are bailing us out, with the IMF - desperate.;)

I'm not a teacher, but socialise a lot with teachers from various countries - those I've met from the UK are delighted to be out of there. Of course, not every teacher is desperate, or working in very bad conditions - I'm speaking in general terms.

But do you take my point, that it is in everyone's interest that good people go into teaching and stay there? And that the best way to do that is to ensure that working conditions are good?

(this is a separate point to our very high PS salaries)

Should we scrap the Croke Park agreement?

Comments